The appellate court can reduce a custodial sentence while affirming a significant fine, considering both the severity of the offence and the offender's personal circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Securities Industry Act 1983 - Sections 84(1), 88B - Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 - Appeal Court judgment regarding the conviction and sentence of an appellant accused of creating misleading appearances in active trading of shares - The offence committed did not involve any change in beneficial ownership of shares - Sentence of imprisonment reduced from three months to one day but the fine of RM2 million was affirmed with installment provisions. (Paras 3, 4, 20)

Facts of the case:
The appellant and two others were charged with offences designed to create a misleading appearance of active trading in Suremax shares, affecting stock market operations at Bursa Malaysia. After a lengthy trial, the appellant was convicted on an alternative charge and sentenced to three months imprisonment and a RM2 million fine. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court reduced the jail term while affirming the substantial fine, emphasizing the severity of the misconduct but also considering extenuating circumstances such as the appellant’s bankruptcy and familial obligations, establishing payment in installments. (Paras 4, 20)

Issues: The main issues focused on the appropriateness of the sentence considering the appellant's role in the offence, his financial circumstances, and the statutory penalties under the relevant law. (Paras 3, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the gravity of the offence warranted significant punishment, but recognized that the appellant was not the primary perpetrator and had cooperated with authorities. The purpose of the penalty was reformatory, aiming to allow the appellant an opportunity for rehabilitation over incarceration. (Paras 15, 20)

Result: Appeal against the sentence allowed partly; imprisonment reduced to one day and fine affirmed with payment in installments.

Table of Content
1. charges under securities industry act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's findings and sentencing details. (Para 3)

[1] The appellant with two others were originally charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court with one amended principal charge and another with an amended alternative charge for offences under the Securities Industry Act 1983 (Act 280). The Act has since been repealed and replaced with the new Capital Markets and Services Act 2007 (Act 671) ("CMSA"). As for the amended principal charge, they were charged in furtherance of a common intention of them, for a misleading appearance of active trading of Suremax Group Berhad (Company No: 334228-K) ("Suremax") shares on a stock market, that is Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad, through sale and purchase transactions of Suremax shares executed through the central depository securities accounts, which have the effect of raising the price of Suremax shares and therefore, committed an offence under s 84(1) of the Securities Industry Act 1983 ("SIA") read together with s 34 of the Penal Code (" PC "), punishable under s 88B of the SIA.

[2] As for the amended alternative charge, they were charged in furtherance of common intention of them, for a misleading appearance of active trading of Suremax shares on a stock market, that is Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad, by indirectly being concerned in transactions of sale and purchase of Suremax shares that do not involve any change in the beneficial ownership of the said shares, executed through the central depository securities accounts and thereby, committed an offence under s 84(1) of the SIA read together with s 34 of the PC , punishable under s 88B of the SIA.

[3] At the lower Court, after a lengthy trial which took some six years to conclude, the appellant together with another accused person were found guilty and convicted by the trial judge on the amended alternative charge. On conviction, the appellant was sentenced to three months imprisonment with a fine of RM2 million and in default, to suffer further six months imprisonment. The appellant had since filed an appeal to this Court against the said conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial judge.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 MarsdenLR 805

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPURBUN LIT CHUN – AppellantVersusPP – Respondent[Criminal Appeal No: 42-12-2011]

The appellate court can reduce a custodial sentence while affirming a significant fine, considering both the severity of the offence and the offender's personal circumstances.

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BUN LIT CHUN – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent
[Criminal Appeal No: 42-12-2011]