Practical Issues Arising from the Transposition of the Market Abuse Directive into the Chosen Member States’ Legal Systems

Seredyńska, Iwona

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22857-5_2

Iwona Seredyńska²

1029 Accesses

Abstract

The transposition of a directive into a national legal system is always difficult and it demands special attention in order to be properly conducted. Legal provisions, created by the European institutions on a supra-national level, have to become a part of the legal systems of all the Member States to which they apply. And each Member State has its own characteristics and judicial tradition. According to the constitutive acts of the European Union, a directive is binding as to the result to be achieved but the choice of the form and methods of transposition are upon each Member State. Therefore, the provisions of every directive should precisely indicate their objective but they should also leave some room for the Member States’ legislative activity. Meanwhile, directives are often used in order to regulate very precise domains that require high level of conformity between Member States. Thus, they contain the definitions and rules that should be introduced into the national legal systems without any changes. In such cases, the Member States have only illusive powers of choosing the best method of transposition. Otherwise, they risk modification of the act.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
TFEU, Article 288, up to 30 November 2009: Treaty on the European Community, Article 249.
2.
E.g. Directive 2006/42/EC on machinery.
3.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 18.
4.
MOLONEY, Niamh in EC Securities Regulation, 2nd edition, Oxford 2008, pp. 916–917.
5.
Insider Dealing Directive, Article 6.
6.
Such as they can be found in Article 6.1 (2) of the Market Abuse Directive.
7.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 10 September 2009 in Case Spector Photo Group and Van Raemdonck C-45/08, points 75−92.
8.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 14.
9.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 14.1.
10.
Executive Summary to the Report on Administrative Measures and Sanctions as well as the Criminal Sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive (MAD), CESR/08-099, February 2008, p. 2.
11.
For more details see: GOYEAU, Daniel, TARAZI, Amine, La Bourse, Paris, 2006.
12.
TRUSZKOWSKI, Jacek, Euronext, in: in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 47.
13.
PIEKARZEWSKA, Agnieszka, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Wielkiej Brytani – London Stock Exchange, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 41.
14.
TRUSZKOWSKI, Jacek, Euronext, in: in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 57.
15.
JEANDIDIER, Wilfrid, Droit pénal des affaires, Dalloz, 5th edition, 2003, p. 66.
16.
In the case TGS, for more details see: section “Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.”, Chap. 1.
17.
MFC, Article L.621-1.
18.
Act of Parliament No. 2003-706 of 1 August 2003 on the financial security, Chapter 1.
19.
TRUSZKOWSKI, Jacek, Euronext, in: in: Ziarko-Siwek, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 49.
20.
E.g. MFC, Article L.621-13.
21.
GÓRA, Małgorzata, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Luksemburgu – Luxembourg Stock Exchange, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, pp. 375–388.
22.
Act of parliament of 23 December 1998 on creation of the Commission of Surveillance of the Financial Sector, as amended, Article 1(1).
23.
GÓRA, Małgorzata, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Luksemburgu – Luxembourg Stock Exchange, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 377.
24.
Published in Mémorial A n° 31 of 24 May 1991.
25.
Published in Mémorial A n° 83 of 16 May 2006, it may be also noted that the transposition of the Market Abuse Directive to the national law was made after the delay provided by the directive, after the judgment of the CJEU in case C-151/06 stating the non-respect of the due date of implementation.
26.
CSSF circular 06/257, 07/280 and 07/323.
27.
OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, pp. 1–44, as amended (the so-called MiFiD Directive).
28.
Project of the law No. 6081 of the Luxembourg Parliament, Ordinary session 2009–2010, pp. 4–5.
29.
Project of the law No. 6081 of the Luxembourg Parliament, Ordinary session 2009–2010, p. 5.
30.
Act of Parliament of 26 July 2010 amending the law of 9 May 2006 on market abuse and complementing the transposition of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (published in Mémorial A No. 119 of 28 July 2010, pp. 2046-2047), Article 1.
31.
ALEXANDER, Larry, SHERWIN, Emily, Judges as Rule Makers, in: Common Law Theory, Ed. Edlin, Douglas E., Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 27–50.
32.
PIEKARZEWSKA, Agnieszka, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Wielkiej Brytani – London Stock Exchange, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 23.
33.
PIEKARZEWSKA, Agnieszka, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Wielkiej Brytani – London Stock Exchange, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 41.
34.
The FSA’s markets regulatory agenda, May 2010, p. 42, obligation was imposed by enactment of a new section of FSA Handbook, i.e. Section COBS 11.8 published in Policy Statement 08/01 of March 2008, available at http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps08_01.pdf (last seen on 15 February 2011).
35.
The FSA’s markets regulatory agenda, May 2010, p. 42.
36.
Information transmitted by Reuters on 18 March 2010 available at http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=reutersnews&articleid=TRE62H41O&feed=Bus&action=article (last seen on 15 February 2011).
37.
Historia giełdy w Polsce, available at http://www.gpw.pl/historia (last seen on 15 February 2011).
38.
Historia giełdy w Polsce, available at http://www.gpw.pl/historia (last seen on 15 February 2011).
39.
Historia giełdy w Polsce, available at http://www.gpw.pl/historia (last seen on 15 February 2011).
40.
Act of Parliament of 21 July 2006 on Financial Market Supervision, Article 3.2.
41.
Act of parliament of 22 March 1991 – The Law on the Public Trading of Securities and Trust Funds, Article 6.1.
42.
ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Polsce – Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie SA, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 367.
43.
i.e. those who joined the European Union in 2004 and later, ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula, Giełda papierów wartościowych w Polsce – Giełda Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie SA, in: ZIARKO-SIWEK, Urszula (editor), Giełdy kapitałowe w Europie, Warsaw 2007, p. 367.
44.
Entry into force of the Act of Parliament of 29 December 1993 Amending the Act of Parliament of 22 March 1991 on Public Trading in Securities and Trust Funds (Dz. U. 1994, No. 4, item 17, as amended), Article 1. 36–37.
45.
MROWIEC, Zbigniew, Komentarz do Dyrektywy Rady Wspólot Europejskich z 13 listopada 1989 (89/592/EWG),in: Prawo Wspólnot Europejskich a prawo polskie. T. 1, 1996, p. 242.
46.
Act of Parliament on Capital Market Supervision (Dz.U. 2005, No. 183, item 1537, as amended), Act of Parliament on Trading in Financial Instruments (Dz.U. 2005, No. 183 item 1538, as amended), Act of Parliament on Public Offering, Conditions Governing the Introduction of Financial Instruments to Organised Trading, and Public Companies (Dz.U. 2005, No. 183, item 1539, as amended).
47.
General Regulation of the Financial Markets Authority (AMF), Articles 621-1–621-3.
48.
MFC, Article L.465-1.
49.
MFC, Article L.465-1.
50.
The Market Abuse Directive extends its application also to financial instruments that are not admitted to trading on a regulated market in a Member State, if only their value depends on a financial instrument that is admitted to trading on a such market (Article 9).
51.
Act on Market Abuse, Article 1.1 and Article 2.
52.
FSMA 2000 modified by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Market Abuse) Regulations 2005, Section 118C.
53.
FSMA 2000, Section 118C(2)(a).
54.
CJA 1993, Section 56.
55.
WOTHERSPOON, Keith, Insider Dealing: The New Law: Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, The Modern Law Review, May 1994, Vol. 57, No. 3, p. 420.
56.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 1.1.
57.
WOTHERSPOON, Keith, Insider Dealing: The New Law: Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, The Modern Law Review, May 1994, Vol. 57, No. 3, p. 421.
58.
Directive 2003/124/EC, Article 1.1.
59.
CJA 1993, Section 58(2).
60.
CJA 1993, Section 58(3).
61.
WOTHERSPOON, Keith, Insider Dealing: The New Law: Part V of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, The Modern Law Review, May 1994, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 423–424.
62.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 154.1.
63.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 1.1, Polish version published in OJ Special edition in Polish:Chapter 6 Vol. 4 pp. 367–376, p. 371.
64.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 154.1, author’s translation into English.
65.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 1.1., Polish version published in OJ Special edition in Polish: Chapter 6 Vol. 4 p. 371, author’s translation into English.
66.
Especially, when this change in formulation does not bring any clarification on the understanding of the notion of “being precise”.
67.
See Sect. C.I.3 above.
68.
In this case not only to the Directive published in the Polish Official Journal but to the other languages versions.
69.
E.g. CJEU, 14 February 1994, Paola Faccini Dori against Recreb Srl, C-91/92.
70.
AMF General Regulation, Article 622-2.
71.
AMF General Regulation, Article 622-2, first paragraph, point 3.
72.
AMF General Regulation, Article 622-2, third paragraph.
73.
MFC, Article L.465-1.
74.
French Commercial Code, Article L.225-109.
75.
Act on Market Abuse, Articles 8 and 10.
76.
CJA 1993, Section 57.
77.
FSMA 2000 modified by the FSMA 2000 (Market Abuse) Regulations 2005, Section 118B.
78.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 4.
79.
FSMA 2000 modified by the FSMA 2000 (Market Abuse) Regulations 2005, Section 118B(e).
80.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.1.1.
81.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.1.2.
82.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.1.3.
83.
One may discuss whether in such situation the prohibition against market manipulation can be applied to the dealing in the financial instruments. However in many cases the change in value of shares might be just a “side-effect” and not the objective of an action, and that would make the market manipulation charge unfounded.
84.
See Sect. C.II.3 above.
85.
For a more detailed presentation see section “Forbidden Practices”, Chap. 1.
86.
AMF General Regulations, Article 622-1.
87.
AMF, General Regulation, Article 622-1, section 1.
88.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 3(a).
89.
AMF General Regulation, Article 622-1, section 2.
90.
AMF General Regulation, Article 622-1, section 3.
91.
MCF, Article L.465-1 I.
92.
“de réaliser ou de permettre de réaliser, soit directement, soit par personne interposée, une ou plusieurs opérations avant que le public ait connaissance de ces informations.”
93.
“réaliser ou de permettre de réaliser, directement ou indirectement, une opération […] avant que le public […] ait connaissance [de ces informations]”.
94.
See, e.g. Exhibit to Polish Regulation of the Prime Minister of 20 June 2002 concerning the „Rules of the legislative technic” (Rozporządzenie Prezesa Rady Ministrów z dnia 20 czerwca 2002 r. w sprawie "Zasad techniki prawodawczej") published in Dz. U. 2002, No. 100, item 908, §10.
95.
MFC, Article L.465-1 II.
96.
MFC, Article L.465-1 III.
97.
Act on Market Abuse, Articles 8–10.
98.
Act of Parliament of 26 July 2010 amending the law of 9 May 2006 on market abuse and complementing the transposition of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), Article 4.
99.
FSMA 2000, Section 118(2).
100.
FSMA 2000, Section 118(3).
101.
FSMA 2000, Section 118(4).
102.
CJA 1993, Sections 53(1) and 53(3).
103.
CJA 1993, Section 55(1)–(3).

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person deals in securities if—

(a) he acquires or disposes of the securities (whether as principal or agent); or

(b) he procures, directly or indirectly, an acquisition or disposal of the securities by any other person.

(2) For the purposes of this Part, “acquire”, in relation to a security, includes—

(a) agreeing to acquire the security; and

(b) entering into a contract which creates the security.

(3) For the purposes of this Part, “dispose”, in relation to a security, includes—

(a) agreeing to dispose of the security; and

(b) bringing to an end a contract which created the security.
104.
CJA 1993, Section 55.
105.
CJA 1993, Section 52(2)(a).
106.
CJA 1993, Section 52(2)(b).
107.
CJA 1993, Section 53.
108.
But of course it is the task of the prosecution to prove he, actually, did violate it.
109.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.1-2.
110.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.4.
111.
Similarly: ROMANOWSKA, Anna, Informacje poufne w świetle nowych regulacji prawnych insider trading, Przegląd Prawa Handlowego, 2006, No. 9, pp. 52–53.
112.
For more details see: section “Acquisition and Disposal of Financial Instruments”, Chap. 1.
113.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.5.
114.
ROMANOWSKA, Anna, Informacje poufne w świetle nowych regulacji prawnych insider trading, Przegląd Prawa Handlowego, 2006, No. 9, p. 53.
115.
ROMANOWSKA, Anna, Informacje poufne w świetle nowych regulacji prawnych insider trading, Przegląd Prawa Handlowego, 2006, No. 9, p. 53.
116.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, published in Dz. U. 2005, No. 183, item 1538, as amended, Article 156.6.1.
117.
MFC, Article L.621–15 III.
118.
MFC, Article L.621-14I.
119.
MFC, Article L. 621–15.
120.
MFC, Article L.621–15 III.
121.
MFC, Article L.621-13.
122.
MFC, Article.L621–14 II.
123.
MFC, Article L.621– 5 III.
124.
Ohl, Daniel, Droit des sociétés cotées, LexisNexis SA, 2nd edition, 2005, p. 294.
125.
See section “Criminal Sanctions” below.
126.
As defined in the MFC, Article L.465–1 I: Executives of a company referred to in Article L. 225-109 of the Commercial Code, or persons who, through the practice of their profession or the performance of their functions, obtain privileged information concerning the prospects or the situation of an issuer whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market or the likely performance of a financial instrument admitted to trading on a regulated market.
127.
MFC, Article L.465 – 1 I.
128.
As defined in the MFC, Article L.465–1 III: Any person, other than those referred to in the previous two paragraphs, who knowingly obtains privileged information concerning the situation or the prospects of an issuer whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market or the likely performance of a financial instrument admitted to trading on a regulated market.
129.
MFC, Article L.465–1 III.
130.
MFC, Article L.465–1 II.
131.
MFC, Article L.465–1 III.
132.
On this subject also: STASIAK, Fréderick, Droit pénal des affaires, Paris, 2009, p. 294.
133.
MFC, Article L.621 20 al. 1.
134.
Conseil constitutionnel, decision of 28 July 1989, No. 89-260 DC.
135.
Conseil constitutionnel, decision of 28 July 1989, No. 89-260 DC, paragraph 6, see more in Sect. B, Chap. 4.
136.
Conseil constitutionnel, decision of 28 July 1989, No. 89-260 DC, paragraph 16.
137.
Conseil constitutionnel, decision of 28 July 1989, No. 89-260 DC, paragraph 27.
138.
More on this discussion may be found in: COULON, Jean-Marie, Les nouveaux champs de pénalisation, excès et lacunes, Pouvoirs 2009/1, No. 128, pp. 7–8.
139.
La dépénalisation de la vie des affaires, Rapport au garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice, prepared by a working group chaired by Jean-Marie COULON, January 2008.
140.
For a review of the case-law see, e.g. LOYRETTE, Sybille, Le contentieux des abuse de marché, Procédure de sanction de l'AMF, information financière, opérations d'initiés, manipulations de cours, Joly Editions, 2007.
141.
TGI Paris, 13 February 2002, Public Minister v. Levet, Saulnier, Jousseau and others, No. 9926669051.
142.
„les personnes disposant, à l'occasion de l'exercice de leur profession ou de leurs fonctions, d'informations privilégiées”, MFC, Article L.465-1 I.
143.
„toute personne disposant dans l'exercice de sa profession ou de ses fonctions d'une information privilégiée”, MFC, Article L.465-1 II.
144.
Similarly Basile ADER in: Diffusion d’informations privilégiées non rendues publiques en matière boursière, Légipresse, No. 194, September 2002, pp. 152–153.
145.
MORTIER, Renaud, Affaire EADS: mise hors de cause générale, Droit des sociétés, No. 4, April 2010, comment 74.
146.
Decision of the AMF’s Sanctioning Commission of 27 November 2009 regarding Olivier Andries, François Auque, Fabrice Bregier, Charles Champion, Henri Coupron, Ralph Crosby Jr., Thomas Enders, Alain Flourens, Noël Forgeard, Jean-Paul Gut, Gustav Humbert, Jussi Itävuori, John Leahy, Erik Pillet, Andreas Sperl, Thomas Williams, Stefan Zoller and the companies EADS NV, Lagardere SCA, and Daimler AG, published in Recueil des Décisions de la Commission des Sanctions de l’AMF et des juridictions de recours 2007-2009, available at http://www.amf-france.org/documents/general/9652_1.pdf?lang=fr&Id_Tab=0 (Last seen on 28 January 2011), pp. 741–743.
147.
Directive 2004/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the harmonisation of transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market and amending Directive 2001/34/EC, OJ L 390, 31.12.2004, pp. 38–57.
148.
DAIGRE, Jean-Jacques, Note – Une information n’est privilégiée que si elle est précise et non publique, mais également sensible pour un investisseur raisonnable, Bulletin Joly Bourse, 1 March 2010, No. 2, p. 107ff.
149.
AMF’s General Regulation, Article 621-1 II.
150.
MORTIER, Renaud, Affaire EADS: mise hors de cause générale, Droit des sociétés, No. 4, April 2010, comment 74.
151.
Similarly: MORTIER, Renaud, Affaire EADS: mise hors de cause générale, Droit des sociétés, No. 4, April 2010, comment 74.
152.
MORTIER, Renaud, Affaire EADS: mise hors de cause générale, Droit des sociétés, No. 4, April 2010, comment 74.
153.
DAIGRE, Jean-Jacques, Note – Une information n’est privilégiée que si elle est précise et non publique, mais ’également sensible pour un investisseur raisonnable, Bulletin Joly Bourse, 1 March 2010, No. 2, p. 107ff.
154.
Project of the law of the Luxembourg Parliament, Ordinary session 2005-2006, No. 5415, see also: POELMANS, Olivier, CONIN, Sandrine, Le délit d’initié: première décision de jurisprudence et projet de réforme législative, ALJB – Bulletin Droit et Banque No. 36, 2005, pp. 34–35.
155.
More details about this decision in the section “Coexistence of Criminal and Administrative Sanctions”of this chapter.
156.
POELMANS, Olivier, CONIN, Sandrine, Le délit d’initié: première décision de jurisprudence et projet de réforme législative, ALJB – Bulletin Droit et Banque No. 36, 2005, p. 34.
157.
Opinion of the Conseil d’Etat on the project of the law on market abuse of 15 November 2005, p. 8.
158.
Criminal Procedure Code, (Code d’instruction criminelle), Article 179(1).
159.
Information of 29 October 2009, IP/09/1633, concerning addressing to Luxembourg a reasoned opinion regarding incorrect transposition of Market Abuse Directive, available on: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1633&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (last seen on 15 February 2011).
160.
For more details see: Project of the law of the Luxembourg Parliament, Ordinary session 2009-2010, No. 6081.
161.
Act on Market Abuse, initial version, Article 32.1.
162.
Act on Market Abuse, initial version, Article 32.5.
163.
Act on Market Abuse, initial version, Article 32.2.
164.
Act on Market Abuse, initial version, Article 32.2 and Article 32.5.
165.
Act on Market Abuse, initial version, Article 32.3.
166.
Opinion of the Conseil d’État on the project of the law No. 6081 of 4 May 2010, p. 3.
167.
Act on Market Abuse, as amended, Article 33.1 and 2.
168.
Act on Market Abuse, as amended, Article 33.4.
169.
Act on Market Abuse, as amended, Article 33.5.
170.
Act on Market Abuse, as amended, Article 33.4 and 5.
171.
Act of Parliament of 26 July 2010 amending the law of 9 May 2006 on market abuse and complementing the transposition of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse), Article 4.
172.
POELMANS, Olivier, CONIN, Sandrine, Le délit d’initié: première décision de jurisprudence et projet de réforme législative, ALJB – Bulletin Droit et Banque No. 36, 2005, p. 34.
173.
SPIELMANN, Dean, SPIELMANN Alphonse, Droit pénal général luxembourgeois, Bruylant Bruxelles, 2004, p. 327.
174.
Act on Market Abuse, as amended, Article 10.
175.
Act on Market Abuse, as amended, Article 33.6.
176.
Judgment of the Tribunal d’arrondissement in Luxembourg, of 13 July 2004, ALJB, Bulletin Droit et Banque, No. 36, 2005, pp. 57–62.
177.
CESR, Level 3 – second set of CESR guidance and information on the common operation of the directive to the market, p. 4.
178.
Act of Parliament of 3 May 1991 on insider dealing, Article 2.1.
179.
See section “Forbidden Practices”, Chap. 1.
180.
Judgment of the Tribunal d’arrondissement in Luxembourg, of 13 July 2004, ALJB, Bulletin Droit et Banque, No. 36, 2005, p. 61.
181.
FSMA 2000, Section 123(1).
182.
FSMA 2000, Section 127.
183.
FSMA 2000, Section 123(2).
184.
FSMA 2000, Section 123(3).
185.
FSMA 2000, Section 124(1).
186.
Available at www.fsa.gov.uk
187.
FSMA 2000, Section 127.
188.
FSMA 2000, Section 132.
189.
James Parker v. the FSA, 11 may 2006, paragraph 24: “We have an entirely original jurisdiction, to be exercised on the evidence available to us (whether or not it was available to the Authority [i.e. The FSA]”.
190.
Financial Services and Market Tribunal Rules 2001, Section 23.
191.
FSMA 2000, Section 381.
192.
FSMA 2000, Section 383.
193.
FSMA 2000, Section 384.
194.
FSMA 2000, Section 56.
195.
FSMA 2000, Section 45.
196.
FSMA 2000, Section 63.
197.
Whole text of the FSA’s Handbook is available at www.fsa.gov.uk
198.
As for the 19 February 2011 – the last version was released on 15 February 2011 (available at http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Policy/Handbook/Releases/2011/110.shtml, last seen on 19 February 2011), the full list of modification may be found on http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/whatsNew.jsp#DES3 (last seen on 19 February 2011).
199.
Released in May 2010.
200.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties.
201.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.2.1.
202.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.4.1.
203.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.5.2.
204.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.2.1.
205.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.2.2.
206.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.4.2.
207.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Sections 6.5A.1 and 6.5C.1.
208.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.5A.2.
209.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.5C.2.
210.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Sections 6.5A.4 and 6.5C.4.
211.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Sections 6.5A.5 and 6.5C.5.
212.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Sections 6.2.1 and 6.4.1.
213.
Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual, Chapter 6 Penalties, Section 6.1.2, italics omitted.
214.
See: Sect. B.I, Chap. 3.
215.
FSMA, Sections 134–136.
216.
Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005, for more details see section “Arif Mohammed”below.
217.
SWAN, Edward, Market Abuse Regulation, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 159.
218.
FSMA 2000, Section 402.
219.
Report on Administrative Measures and Sanctions as well as the Criminal Sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive (MAD), CESR/ 07-693, 17 October 2007, p. 478.
220.
Code for Crown Prosecutors, Section 5.
221.
CJA 1993, Section 61(1), Report on Administrative Measures and Sanctions as well as the Criminal Sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive (MAD), CESR/ 07-693, 17 October 2007, pp. 455–478.
222.
The FSA’s markets regulatory agenda, May 2010, p. 43.
223.
The FSA’s markets regulatory agenda, May 2010, p. 43.
224.
The Herald, internet edition, published on 31 March 2009, available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/solicitor-jailed-after-insider-trade-with-his-father-in-law-1.906356 (last seen on 15 February 2011).
225.
Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005.
226.
Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005, paragraph 4.
227.
Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005, paragraph 1.
228.
Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005, paragraph 4.
229.
Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005 paragraph 5.
230.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006.
231.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 72.
232.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 161.
233.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 178.
234.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 20.
235.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 22.
236.
Especially: Arif Mohammed v. FSA, of 9 March 2005, see above.
237.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 23.
238.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraph 33.
239.
James Parker v. FSA, of 11 May 2006, paragraphs 106–110, 157.
240.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Capital Market Supervision, Article 38.
241.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Capital Market Supervision, Article 38.1.
242.
Act of Parliament of 27 August 1997 on Public Trading in Securities (Ustawa z dnia 21 sierpnia 1997 r. - Prawo o publicznym obrocie papierami wartościowymi) published in Dz. U. 1997, No. 118, item 754, as amended, repealed on 24 October 2005.
243.
It is a threshold established by the Polish Criminal Code for the notion of a property of a significant value (Article 115 §5).
244.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, Article 181.
245.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, Article 180.
246.
Act of Parliament of 29 July 2005 on Trading in Financial Instruments, Article 182.
247.
See, e.g. judicial decisions of 29 April 1998 (No. of case K17/97) or of 4 September 2007 (No. of case P43/06); both of them were rendered in fiscal cases, however the general rule about unconstitutional application of administrative and criminal sanctions towards a single individual for the same breach can be applied to all domains.
248.
Polish Criminal Code of 6 June 1997 (Journal of Law 1997, No. 88 item 553, as amended), Article 1.
249.
WA˛SEK, Andrzej, KULIK, Marek, in: FILAR, Marian (ed.), Kodeks Karny Komentarz, 2nd edition, Lexis Nexis Warszawa 2010, p. 20.
250.
BOJARSKI, Tadeusz, Komentarz do Kodeksu Karnego, 3rd edition, Lexis Nexis Warsaw 2009, p. 28.
251.
Polish Criminal Code, Article 115 §2.
252.
CESR’s Report on Administrative Measures and Sanctions as well as the Criminal Sanctions available in Member States under the Market Abuse Directive (MAD), October 2007, p. 365.
253.
Act of Parliament on Trading in Financial Instruments, Articles 175 and 176.
254.
Market Abuse Directive, Article 14.
255.
Please see Annex 1 that summarises what kind of the legal definitions may be found in the analysed Member States.
256.
Please see Sect. C.II, Chap. 3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

rue Frantz Clement 18, 1345, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Dr. Iwona Seredyńska

Authors

Dr. Iwona Seredyńska
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iwona Seredyńska .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Seredyńska, I. (2012). Practical Issues Arising from the Transposition of the Market Abuse Directive into the Chosen Member States’ Legal Systems. In: Insider Dealing and Criminal Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22857-5_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22857-5_2
Published: 22 September 2011
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22856-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22857-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics