appConfigEntityId

bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

isVideo

articlePageQuery

article

articleSchemaContent

content

hooksArticlePageAdvertisementConfigArticle

hooksArticlePageFloatingButtonConfigArticle

appConfig

filter

json

liveArticle

Jake Van Der Kamp

For cooperation to be recognised, parties must go above and beyond their statutory and regulatory obligations.”
-- Thomas Atkinson Executive director, Enforcement
Securities and Futures Commission
SCMP, January 15
The thing about law that makes it law is that there is a solid anchor to it. An act is either legal or illegal. We can dispute which of the two any act may be, but we refer to the law to see what makes it so.
Imagine, however, that instead of having law by which to make their rulings, judges were required to decide only whether they personally think any plea made to them was, for want of any precise word, fair.
There certainly have been systems of justice like this in the past, there are even some today, and they are marvellously efficient. Their rulings come rapidly and decisively while appeals are pointless if all that matters is a judge’s state of mind at the time he makes his judgment. It works like a charm.
Let us be glad that we do not have this sort of system of justice in Hong Kong. Well, not yet anyway, only partially.
When Mr Atkinson tells us that “parties” whom the SFC is in the process of nailing up to a wall may reduce the penalties that will fall on their heads if they “go above and beyond their statutory and regulatory obligations”, there are a few questions to be asked.
I have in mind here in particular two paragraphs from the guidance note he issued on the subject. They bear quoting in full:
“For the avoidance of doubt, a bona fide refusal to waive legal professional privilege attached to a document provided to the SFC will not be regarded as uncooperative conduct. The SFC recognises that legal professional privilege is a fundamental right protected by the Basic Law and section 380(4) of the SFO [Securities and Futures Ordinance] and fully respects the exercise of this right.
“Nonetheless, if a person voluntarily waives a claim to legal professional privilege over a document, even on a limited basis, this may be recognised as cooperation, which may be taken into account when the SFC considers the appropriate outcome.”
Let me rephrase this: “The Basic Law gives you a right which we cannot penalise you for exercising, and yet we will, nonetheless, penalise you for doing it.”
Just remove the cloak of SFC blather and that is what it comes to. They have announced a formal system of penalty reduction beyond the statutes and regulations that they have the authority to enforce. For abiding by your rights you will get whacked the harder.
Bear in mind that under its governing ordinance, which it wrote for itself, the SFC is already policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury all rolled into one.
Bear in mind also that this supra police force needs to prove its accusations beyond a reasonable doubt only if it goes to a court law. In most cases, it resorts to one of its market misconduct tribunals, which require only civil standards of proof.
It cannot jail people whom it convicts there, but it still has a wide range of financial and other penalties that can destroy careers and drive people into penury and misery.
Our earlier report this week on this new “cooperation” privilege emphasised that it would only be used in milder violations but I saw no mention of this in the guideline the SFC issued. Pardon my suspicious nature, but government officials too often softpeddle their public announcement of new measures.
In this case, however, it would only confuse things more. What would “mild” be, and what is “serious”? How can we know? Who decides?
It is all the worse because an increasing number of SFC-created offences already lack definition. It is an offence, for instance, for directors not to make timely disclosure of relevant information.
How is relevant information defined? It is not always easy to make out and yet all the market gets from the SFC is looks like hints.
Beware if you get it wrong. You will have to grovel for the cooperation privilege then.
This is not regulation. This is more like a primitive religion in which you propitiate a capricious lightning-armed god with offerings of abject worship.


Physical moves by online financial firms unlikely to pump up property market: analysts

Hong Kong regulators to flesh out new yuan strategy after Beijing meetings

BlackRock gains QDII status in China’s US$149b market as Beijing leans into opening up

Mainland Chinese tax drive flags Hong Kong MPF accounts as offshore trusts

Financial regulation

Has the securities regulator taken  a step too far with its ill-defined request for cooperation?

Mainland investors at a June 2016 rally before the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA)after losing all their savings in a US$10 billion scam. Photo: SCMP/ Edward Wong

SFC (Securities and Futures Commission) Chairman, Carlson Tong Ka-shing at the Cheung Kong Center in Central. 19DEC17 SCMP / K. Y. Cheng

Tom Atkinson, Executive Director of Enforcement of Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission attends 8th Annual Pan Asian Regulatory Summit 2017 at Grand Hyatt Hong Kong in Wan Chai. 11OCT17 SCMP / Roy Issa

Ashley Alder, Chief Executive Officer of Securities and Futures Commission (SFC); given speech at the 8th Annual Pan Asian Regulatory Summit 2017 at Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, Wan Chai. 10OCT17 SCMP / K. Y. Cheng

Business

Banking & Finance

Money

Stock Talk

Money News

Opinion

What would “mild” be, and what is “serious”? How can we know? Who decides?


Regulation

Stocks

Hong Kong stock exchange

Banking & finance

Expresses the views, ideas and conclusions of the author. (Eg. Enough of Crazy Rich Asians, think of crazy poor Hongkongers.)


Column

Jake’s View

Has the securities regulator taken a step too far with its ill-defined request for cooperation?

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}What would “mild” be, and what is “serious”? How can we know? Who decides?

What would “mild” be, and what is “serious”? How can we know? Who decides?