Remisier Trading Ahead of a Takeover
Pelangi Securities Sdn Bhd is a participating organisation on Bursa Malaysia. Its remisier, Mr Ravi, handles a client, Dato' Wong, who is a non-executive director of a listed construction company, Sri Bina Berhad. On Monday at 9:05 a.m., Dato' Wong calls Ravi and places a buy order for 2 million Sri Bina shares, increasing his holding by 40%. He says he is 'averaging down' and asks Ravi to split the order to avoid attention. Ravi notices that Sri Bina's shares have risen 12% in three days on unusually high volume. On Wednesday, Ravi buys 300,000 shares for his own account. On Thursday, Sri Bina announces a takeover offer at a 35% premium; the shares close 28% higher. Compliance reviews the trading and finds that Ravi's personal account was used, that the order was split into 14 clips, and that Dato' Wong's account had not traded Sri Bina in the previous 12 months. Ravi has not yet filed a suspicious transaction report.
1. What are the insider trading and market conduct issues, and what should compliance do immediately?
Read the worked answer
Potential insider trading: Dato' Wong is a director of Sri Bina; if he traded while in possession of material non-public information about the takeover, he contravenes the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007. Ravi may have received inside information or inferred it; his own-account purchase of 300,000 shares after the client's order is a serious red flag, as is splitting the order into 14 clips to avoid attention. Compliance should immediately: (1) preserve all records - call recordings, order tickets, emails, and personal account statements; (2) restrict Ravi's and Dato' Wong's accounts pending review; (3) escalate to the board or audit committee and legal counsel; (4) make a suspicious transaction report to the Securities Commission without tipping off the clients; (5) cooperate with Bursa and the Securities Commission; (6) consider whether the firm's Chinese walls and personal dealing controls failed. Ravi should not be allowed to handle the client's account during the investigation.
2. Ravi says he bought for his own account because he 'believed in the company' and had no inside information. Evaluate his defence.
Read the worked answer
Ravi's 'belief in the company' defence is weak. The objective facts matter: he knew his client - a director - had placed an unusually large order, split into 14 clips, after a 12% rise on high volume; three days later he bought for himself; the takeover was announced the next day. Even if he was not told the terms, he may have been in possession of material non-public information or have front-run the client. The Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 prohibits trading on inside information and tipping; firm policies also prohibit personal account dealing without pre-clearance and misuse of client information. His failure to file a suspicious transaction report compounds the breach. The firm should not rely on his subjective intent; it should assess the circumstantial evidence and let the regulator investigate. He should be interviewed with legal counsel present and reminded of his duties.
3. What controls should Pelangi Securities strengthen?
Read the worked answer
Controls: (1) Enhanced surveillance for accounts linked to directors and corporate insiders, including watch lists and volume or price alerts. (2) Order-splitting detection and same-day client and personal account correlation. (3) Mandatory pre-clearance and a 30-day holding period for personal account dealing; blackout periods. (4) Training on insider trading, tipping, and suspicious transaction reporting. (5) Clear escalation to compliance and a designated AML/CFT officer; no tipping off. (6) Chinese walls between corporate finance and dealing; restricted lists. (7) Record-keeping and regular independent review. (8) A whistleblowing channel. The firm should also review whether Ravi's supervisor missed the pattern and whether incentives encouraged volume over compliance.