A Comparative Synopsis of the Enforcement of Market Abuse Prohibition in Australia and South Africa
General Material Designation
[Article]
First Statement of Responsibility
Howard Chitimira
.PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC
Place of Publication, Distribution, etc.
Leiden
Name of Publisher, Distributor, etc.
Brill | Nijhoff
SUMMARY OR ABSTRACT
Text of Note
In Australia, the market abuse prohibition is generally well accepted by the investing and non-investing public as well as by the government. This co-operative and co-ordinated approach on the part of all the relevant stakeholders has to date given rise to an increased awareness and commendable combating of market abuse activities in the Australian corporations, companies and securities markets. It is against this background that this article seeks to explore the general enforcement approaches that are employed to combat market abuse (insider trading and market manipulation) activity in Australia. In relation to this, the role of selected enforcement authorities and possible enforcement methods which may be learnt from the Australian experience will be isolated where necessary for consideration in the South African market abuse regulatory framework. In Australia, the market abuse prohibition is generally well accepted by the investing and non-investing public as well as by the government. This co-operative and co-ordinated approach on the part of all the relevant stakeholders has to date given rise to an increased awareness and commendable combating of market abuse activities in the Australian corporations, companies and securities markets. It is against this background that this article seeks to explore the general enforcement approaches that are employed to combat market abuse (insider trading and market manipulation) activity in Australia. In relation to this, the role of selected enforcement authorities and possible enforcement methods which may be learnt from the Australian experience will be isolated where necessary for consideration in the South African market abuse regulatory framework. In Australia, the market abuse prohibition is generally well accepted by the investing and non-investing public as well as by the government. This co-operative and co-ordinated approach on the part of all the relevant stakeholders has to date given rise to an increased awareness and commendable combating of market abuse activities in the Australian corporations, companies and securities markets. It is against this background that this article seeks to explore the general enforcement approaches that are employed to combat market abuse (insider trading and market manipulation) activity in Australia. In relation to this, the role of selected enforcement authorities and possible enforcement methods which may be learnt from the Australian experience will be isolated where necessary for consideration in the South African market abuse regulatory framework. In Australia, the market abuse prohibition is generally well accepted by the investing and non-investing public as well as by the government. This co-operative and co-ordinated approach on the part of all the relevant stakeholders has to date given rise to an increased awareness and commendable combating of market abuse activities in the Australian corporations, companies and securities markets. It is against this background that this article seeks to explore the general enforcement approaches that are employed to combat market abuse (insider trading and market manipulation) activity in Australia. In relation to this, the role of selected enforcement authorities and possible enforcement methods which may be learnt from the Australian experience will be isolated where necessary for consideration in the South African market abuse regulatory framework.