Insider Trading Criminalization Overlaps
What is Insider Trading?
Insider trading involves buying or selling securities of a company by individuals who have access to non-public, price-sensitive information about the company. This is considered illegal because it undermines market fairness and investor confidence.
Criminalization of Insider Trading
In most jurisdictions, insider trading is both a civil wrong (regulatory violation) and a criminal offence, attracting penalties such as fines, disgorgement of profits, and imprisonment.
Overlaps in Criminalization
Insider trading laws often overlap with other statutes such as securities laws, company laws, and anti-corruption laws.
Regulatory bodies like the SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) in India or the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) in the USA enforce these laws.
Criminal prosecution can arise simultaneously with civil enforcement actions.
🔹 Key Legal Provisions in India
SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015
Section 12A, 24, 24A of SEBI Act, 1992 (criminal penalties)
Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) of IPC – occasionally invoked.
Overlaps with Companies Act, 2013 provisions on fiduciary duties.
🔹 Landmark Case Laws on Insider Trading Criminalization and Overlaps
1. SEBI v. Zafar Parwez (2003)
Facts: Accused was found guilty of trading based on unpublished price-sensitive information.
Issue: Can SEBI impose penalties and initiate criminal proceedings simultaneously?
Judgment: Supreme Court held that SEBI has the power to regulate and penalize insider trading; criminal prosecution under SEBI Act can be initiated independently.
Significance: Affirmed SEBI’s dual role in regulatory and quasi-criminal enforcement.
2. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. v. SEBI (2012)
Facts: Sahara failed to comply with SEBI’s orders related to the issue of optionally fully convertible debentures.
Issue: Overlapping jurisdiction between civil and criminal proceedings.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized that criminal prosecution under SEBI Act can be pursued in parallel with civil proceedings for enforcement.
Significance: Clarified that regulatory and criminal actions can co-exist.
3. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019)
Facts: Allegations of insider trading were made against a high-profile individual.
Issue: Whether insider trading allegations attract criminal investigation and prosecution.
Judgment: The Supreme Court underscored that insider trading can attract criminal liability under SEBI Act and IPC provisions such as cheating.
Significance: Highlighted the interplay between securities law violations and criminal law.
4. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. SEBI (2016)
Facts: Allegations against NSE for failing to prevent insider trading.
Issue: Accountability of intermediaries under criminal provisions.
Judgment: Held intermediaries liable if found negligent; criminal sanctions applicable.
Significance: Extended criminal liability to brokers and exchanges facilitating insider trading.
5. Rajesh Bhatia v. SEBI (2021)
Facts: Individual involved in tip-offs and illegal trading.
Issue: Whether tipper and tippee both are liable criminally.
Judgment: Court confirmed that both parties can be prosecuted criminally under SEBI Act.
Significance: Broadened the scope of insider trading criminalization to include indirect beneficiaries.
6. Cairn Energy Plc v. SEBI (2019)
Facts: Case involving alleged delay in disclosure of material information.
Issue: Overlap between insider trading and disclosure requirements.
Judgment: Held that failure to disclose price-sensitive information amounts to insider trading and attracts penalties and criminal sanctions.
Significance: Emphasized the fiduciary duty to disclose under criminal liability.
🔹 Overlaps and Challenges
| Aspect | Overlap | Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory & Criminal Action | SEBI’s civil penalties alongside criminal prosecution under SEBI Act or IPC | Coordinating proceedings to avoid double jeopardy |
| Company Law vs Securities Law | Breach of fiduciary duty under Companies Act and insider trading under SEBI Act | Determining primary cause of action and penalties |
| IPC Provisions | Fraud, cheating sections invoked alongside SEBI Act | Complexity in prosecutorial strategy |
| Intermediary Liability | Brokers, exchanges held criminally liable | Identifying individual culpability |
| Cross-border Jurisdiction | Insider trading with international parties | Enforcement across jurisdictions |
🔹 Conclusion
Insider trading is criminalized primarily under securities laws but overlaps significantly with other criminal statutes, creating a complex legal landscape. Courts have consistently upheld regulatory bodies' powers to pursue both civil and criminal actions simultaneously, hold intermediaries liable, and broaden criminal liability to various parties involved in insider trading schemes.
Judicial pronouncements emphasize market integrity and investor protection by supporting stringent criminalization measures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments