PP v Wang Ziyi Able: Disseminating False Information & Securities Trading
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittal of Wang Ziyi Able by the District Judge. Wang was charged under Section 199(b)(i) of the Securities and Futures Act for disseminating false information on Shareinvestor.com that was likely to induce the sale of Datacraft Asia Limited shares. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that Wang did not have an honest belief in the information he disseminated and convicted him.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Wang Ziyi Able was charged with disseminating false information likely to induce securities sales. The High Court allowed the appeal, convicting Able.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Alvin Koh, Janet Wang |
| Wang Ziyi Able | Respondent | Individual | Conviction | Lost | Philip Fong, Evangeline Poh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alvin Koh | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Janet Wang | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Philip Fong | Harry Elias Partnership |
| Evangeline Poh | Harry Elias Partnership |
4. Facts
- Respondent disseminated information on Shareinvestor.com about a CAD raid on Datacraft.
- The information disseminated was false; CAD did not raid Datacraft's office.
- The disseminated information was likely to induce the sale of Datacraft shares.
- Respondent sold 700,000 Datacraft shares after receiving an SMS about the alleged raid.
- Respondent received OCBC reports referencing rumors of CAD follow-up action.
- Respondent attempted to verify the CAD raid with friends and a lawyer, but none confirmed it.
- Datacraft issued an announcement clarifying that the rumors relating to the alleged CAD raid were unfounded.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Wang Ziyi Able, MA 226/2006, [2007] SGHC 204
- PP v Wang Ziyi Able, , [2006] SGDC 282
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alleged CAD raid on Datacraft's office | |
| Sharp fall in Datacraft's share price | |
| Respondent sold 700,000 Datacraft shares | |
| Respondent received first OCBC report | |
| Respondent called Mr. Ong and Mr. Fong to inquire about the alleged CAD raid | |
| Respondent called Sam Wong to ask for news of the alleged CAD raid | |
| Respondent called Sam Wong again | |
| Respondent received second OCBC report | |
| Respondent gave instructions to sell 200,000 Datacraft shares | |
| Respondent placed orders to sell an additional 50,000 Datacraft shares | |
| Respondent posted the first post on the SI forum | |
| Respondent placed an order to buy 61,000 Datacraft shares | |
| Papabull posted a message in response to the first post | |
| Respondent posted the second post on the SI forum | |
| Respondent made another entry in relation to the alleged CAD raid | |
| Respondent's order to buy 61,000 Datacraft shares was fulfilled | |
| Respondent placed another order to buy 50,000 Datacraft shares | |
| Datacraft made an announcement clarifying that the rumors relating to the alleged CAD raid were unfounded | |
| Respondent bought 400,000 Datacraft shares | |
| Respondent sold 400,000 Datacraft shares in a series of transactions | |
| Respondent called Sam Wong | |
| CAD investigations into the Datacraft share trading disturbance commenced | |
| Trial judge delivered oral judgment acquitting the respondent | |
| Parties appeared before the judge | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Dissemination of False Information
- Outcome: The court held that the respondent did not have an honest belief in the information he disseminated and convicted him.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Requisite mens rea
- Objective or subjective nature of mens rea
- Related Cases:
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Appellate Review of Findings of Fact
- Outcome: The court found that it was open to the High Court, sitting as an appellate court, to review and evaluate the trial judge’s findings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Review of trial judge's finding of fact
- Review of inferences of fact
- Review of inferences of credibility
- Construction of Statute
- Outcome: The court determined the proper interpretation of the mens rea requirement under Section 199(i) of the Securities and Futures Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Purposive approach
- Parliament's intention for mens rea of an offence
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the Respondent
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 199(b)(i) of the Securities and Futures Act
10. Practice Areas
- Securities Regulation
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM Summit Holdings v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited to equate the concept of 'does not care' with that of 'recklessness'. |
| PP v Low Kok Heng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the use of the word 'or' may not produce a disjunctive result in every case. |
| Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PP | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of appellate review of a trial judge's findings of fact and assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn the trial judge's findings of fact, especially where they hinge on the trial judge's assessment of credibility and veracity of witnesses. |
| PP v Teo Ai Nee | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 69 | Singapore | Cited to show that the mental element discussed therein was the one set out in s 199(ii) of the SFA, and not s 199(i). |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the trial judge has had the benefit of viewing and observing the witnesses in court. |
| PP v Choo Thiam Hock | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 248 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court in such an instance to assess the veracity of the witness's evidence. |
| Kuek Ah Lek v PP | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 252 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an apparent lack of appreciation of inconsistencies, contradictions and improbabilities can undermine the basis for any proper finding of credibility. |
| Bhojraj v Sita Ram | Privy Council | Yes | AIR (1936) PC 60 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the real tests are how consistent the story is within itself, how it stands the test of cross-examination and how it fits in with the rest of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. |
| Macleod v Australian Securities Commission | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [1999] WASCA 35 | Australia | Cited to show that the mental element discussed therein was the one set out in s 199(ii) of the SFA, and not s 199(i). |
| Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Caldwell | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 341 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to the objective test of recklessness. |
| Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1949] AC 530 | United Kingdom | Cited for the presumption against tautology. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited as the authority from which the mens rea requirement in s 199 of the SFA appears to be derived. |
| Regina v Mackinnon | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1959] 1 QB 150 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that the word 'reckless', when used in relation to the making of false statements, embraces a statement which is made with the maker not caring whether the statement is true or false. |
| Regina v Grunwald | Court of Criminal Appeal | Yes | [1963] 1 QB 935 | United Kingdom | Cited for the proposition that in order to prove that an accused made a false or misleading statement recklessly, the Prosecution must show that the accused acted rashly in making the statement and had no real basis of facts which could support the statement. |
| R v Wright | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1980] VR 593 | Australia | Cited for the principle that it is a question of fact whether a reasonable person, on receiving the statement or information concerned, would have been induced to sell or buy any securities. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) Section 199 | Singapore |
| Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed) Section 204(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 257 | Singapore |
| Securities Industry Act (Cap 289, 1985 Rev Ed) Section 99 | Singapore |
| Corporations Law (Cth) Section 999 | Australia |
| Tramways Act 1870 (c 78) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Securities and Futures Act
- CAD raid
- Shareinvestor.com
- False information
- Mens rea
- Dissemination
- Datacraft Asia Limited
- Market misconduct
- Securities trading
- Market rumors
15.2 Keywords
- securities
- false information
- market
- CAD
- raid
- shares
- SFA
- Securities and Futures Act
- Wang Ziyi Able
16. Subjects
- Securities Offences
- Market Misconduct
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Securities Law
- Statutory Interpretation
- Criminal Procedure