Maybe the Chair might be interested, especially if the letter is...

Maybe the Chair might be interested, especially if the letter is c/c to newspapers, parliamentary committees, share holder associations, and one or two activists?

Opinion piece - insider trading
Greg Medcraft, ASIC Chairman

Oliver Curtis was found guilty on 2 June 2016 of involvement in an insider trading conspiracy, one in which 45 trades netted him a personal profit of $1,433,727.85. He has never admitted his guilt. On Friday 24 June, Mr Curtis was sentenced to two-years' imprisonment, to serve a minimum of one year in jail.

His co-conspirator John Hartman has admitted guilt, pleading guilty to related, and unrelated, insider trading offences in 2010. He was ultimately sentenced to three years imprisonment, with a single pre-release period of 15 months.

It remains to be seen whether any opportunities for appeal may be identified by Mr Curtis' legal team, so I am reluctant to discuss the specifics of the case.

More broadly, this case demonstrates the resources and the determination ASIC will apply in its quest to prosecute insider trading.

The Curtis case is the latest in a string of market integrity cases brought over the past five years, with an impressive 'success' rate, and increasingly so.

Since 2011, 35 people have been criminally prosecuted for insider trading as a result of ASIC investigations, with a conviction rate of over 85%.

In March 2016, former Hanlong managing director Hui Xiao was sentenced to eight years and three months' jail for insider trading, and that was after we had him extradited from Hong Kong.

Not so long ago it was a truism to say "insider cases never get up". The law was stacked against you. It was too hard to prove. It was too easy for traders to cover their tracks. The definition of "insider knowledge" was too tricky to establish, and how could anyone know for certain which way the market would turn? Et cetera.

I'm not sure that this was ever the case, but it was a widely held view. It certainly could not be argued now, and the market has been put on notice. Insider trading is a crime and it is increasingly likely to be detected. It will be investigated and, where possible, prosecuted.

Should we bother? Does it really matter? Yes and yes, and the law is quite clear why.

For its part, ASIC has invested heavily in getting the right people, and right structures and the right systems in place to rigorously scrutinise the market and follow suspicious trading patterns, or act on information gained through other means.

The bottom-line is simple: insider trading will not be tolerated. ASIC has the systems, the people and the powers to detect and prosecute breaches, and we will not hesitate to take offenders before the criminal courts.