correction: the heading should read 'GIC' and not 'MAS'.
this forum has been quiet lately.
this evening news, due to media pressures, GIC initiated further measures by suspending three employees found guilty of insider trading in a civil suit. not enough lah! (see threads about one month ago below.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think, in this case, the employer, GIC has vicarious liability since the three employees were acting for and in the interest of their employer. I would say they were acting within proper authority eg. trading in japanese equities.
Besides, the loss avoided should have been donated to charities instead of 'donating' to MAS for the funding of educational efforts. You scratch my back, i scratch yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by reachme2003 : 4 Weeks Ago at 11:55 AM.
this forum has been quiet lately.
this evening news, due to media pressures, GIC initiated further measures by suspending three employees found guilty of insider trading in a civil suit. not enough lah! (see threads about one month ago below.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think, in this case, the employer, GIC has vicarious liability since the three employees were acting for and in the interest of their employer. I would say they were acting within proper authority eg. trading in japanese equities.
Besides, the loss avoided should have been donated to charities instead of 'donating' to MAS for the funding of educational efforts. You scratch my back, i scratch yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by reachme2003 : 4 Weeks Ago at 11:55 AM.