Insider Trading – ASIC Investigation
The client is being interviewed in relation to insider trading by ASIC.
ASIC have compulsory or coercive powers under section 19 of the ASIC Act. This means they can compel people to answer their questions and direct them to produce materials.
These powers are very wide-ranging. In a section 19 hearing you can claim a privilege but it is done by saying “privilege” at the start of each answer to a question. You can not claim your privilege once the question has been responded to.
Like any compulsory or coercive hearing, a section 19 hearing often gives you a good indication of what the investigators are actually trying to find out and the assumptions that they are making. If you lie in a section 19 hearing, you are liable to large fines and or imprisonment. So clearly it is better to tell the truth and claim privilege. This would mean that they can not use your words to prosecute you, if you have done something wrong, but they can use your words as the basis of further investigation.
Often, people do not realise the full extent of forensic analysis an organisation such as ASIC have at their disposal.
Investigative tactics are often employed to set up the interviewee. People can be unaware that the interviewers are questioning them and not disclosing what they in fact already have as evidence against the person.
Accredited Criminal Law Specialist for over 17 years and a criminal defence lawyer for over 25 years.
Bill specialises in defending corporate crime cases and defending serious sexual offences charges. Bill has expertly and successfully defended high profile, high-pressure cases and is highly respected by the Courts, police and his peers. Bill runs the Melbourne office and enjoys his involvement in advising on the higher level strategy that should be used to defend cases.
Visit Bill's Melbourne criminal lawyer profile to read more about his background and experience. You can also follow him on Twitter.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 25/02/2013