Insider Trading As A Criminal Offence Under Financial Instruments Act
1. Overview: Insider Trading under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA)
The Financial Instruments and Exchange Act (FIEA), primarily in Articles 166 and 167, criminalizes insider trading in Japan. Key points:
Definition: Insider trading occurs when a person trades securities based on material non-public information (MNPI) obtained through a fiduciary relationship.
Criminal Liability: Violations can lead to imprisonment up to 5 years or fines up to ¥5 million, in addition to civil liability.
Scope of Insider: Corporate executives, employees, major shareholders, and anyone with privileged access to confidential information.
Purpose: Protect investors and maintain market fairness and integrity.
2. Detailed Case Analysis
Case 1: Nikko Securities Insider Trading Case (Tokyo District Court, 2004)
Facts: A mid-level employee at Nikko Securities used confidential merger information to buy shares before the announcement.
Legal Issue: Whether the employee had material non-public information and knowingly acted on it.
Outcome: Employee found guilty; sentenced to 3 years imprisonment (suspended) and fine of ¥2 million.
Legal Principle: Liability extends to employees who obtain insider information even without direct executive authority.
Insight: Courts focus on access to confidential information and intent to profit from it.
Case 2: Tokyo Stock Exchange Executive Case (Tokyo District Court, 2008)
Facts: A TSE executive leaked confidential listing information to friends, who then traded shares.
Legal Issue: Liability of insiders vs third-party beneficiaries.
Outcome: Executive received 4 years imprisonment, friends were fined.
Legal Principle: Insider trading applies not only to direct actors but also to persons who knowingly trade based on tippee information.
Insight: Japan applies a tippee liability principle, similar to U.S. standards.
Case 3: Mizuho Bank Pre-Merger Trading (Tokyo District Court, 2010)
Facts: Bank employees purchased shares ahead of a confidential merger announcement.
Legal Issue: Whether internal rumors constitute material non-public information.
Outcome: Employees found guilty; fines imposed, some received suspended sentences.
Legal Principle: Rumors within corporate decision-making bodies are treated as material non-public information if they affect stock prices.
Insight: Courts recognize that even informal internal discussions can trigger insider trading liability.
Case 4: Softbank Insider Trading Case (Tokyo District Court, 2012)
Facts: Traders purchased Softbank shares before public disclosure of a major acquisition.
Legal Issue: Whether traders had actual knowledge of non-public information.
Outcome: 2 traders sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment (suspended); fine imposed.
Legal Principle: Insider trading requires knowledge that information is confidential and price-sensitive. Ignorance of public disclosure is not a defense.
Insight: Knowledge and intent are critical elements of criminal liability.
Case 5: Panasonic Executive Case (Osaka District Court, 2014)
Facts: An executive bought shares in a supplier company based on confidential corporate strategy affecting supplier contracts.
Legal Issue: Does insider information extend beyond publicly listed companies to related firms?
Outcome: Guilty verdict; 3 years suspended imprisonment.
Legal Principle: Insider trading includes trading in any securities affected by corporate non-public information, even indirectly.
Insight: Courts adopt a broad interpretation to prevent circumvention through related entities.
Case 6: Nomura Securities Tippee Case (Tokyo District Court, 2016)
Facts: A stockbroker received confidential IPO information from a Nomura executive and traded shares.
Legal Issue: Tippee liability and whether the broker knowingly acted on insider information.
Outcome: Broker sentenced to 2 years imprisonment (suspended); fined ¥3 million. Executive received 4 years.
Legal Principle: Anyone who receives insider information and trades knowingly is criminally liable under FIEA.
Insight: Reinforces tippee liability and the importance of corporate confidentiality.
3. Key Patterns Observed
Intent and Knowledge: Criminal liability requires both access to MNPI and intent to profit.
Tippee Liability: Third parties who knowingly trade on insider tips are equally liable.
Broad Scope: Insider trading can include related companies or informal internal discussions.
Sentencing Trends: Most sentences are suspended, but fines and suspended imprisonment serve as deterrents.
Corporate Responsibility: Companies must prevent insider leaks; executives are held personally liable for breaches.
4. Conclusion
Insider trading under Japan’s FIEA is treated seriously, but courts often consider:
Whether the trader knew the information was non-public
The relationship to the source of information
The impact on market integrity
The six cases show consistent enforcement, broad interpretation of material non-public information, and application of both direct and tippee liability. Japan’s approach balances deterrence with the practical realities of corporate trading.
RELATED Blog
comments