法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库>>全文
英国内幕交易案例与制度分析/胡晓东(9)
If the evidence filed on behalf of the inspectors is open to the criticism that it could have been more specific about the results so far of the inquiries undertaken, one can, at the same time, see very good reasons why the inspectors, in an inquiry whose avowed purpose is to identify and report on criminal activity, should not wish to reveal in greater detail than is strictly requisite the course which their inquiries are taking. What the evidence does disclose is, first, that their is a ring of people who have dealt on the Stock Exchange using price-sensitive information derived from at least one servant of the Crown. Secondly, it is demonstrated that the dealing have been on a considerable scale. Thirdly, it is an irresistible inference that the Crown servant or servants responsible for providing the price-sensitive information has or have been acting in breach of a duty of confidence. Fourthly, the inference is well-night irresistible that unless both the source of the information and the persons engaged in the ring can be identified and stopped the course of criminal conduct involved in such dealings is likely to continue. Fifthly, it is beyond dispute that Mr. Warner, without any suggestion of impropriety on his part, is the author of two articles in which unpublished information has been deployed with an accuracy which cannot reasonably be attributed to mere coincidence. That information clearly was, before its publication by Mr. Warner, price-sensitive information and it can, initially, only have come from a Crown servant. Now obviously the precise purpose which will be served by the disclosure of the source of Mr. Warner’s information is not capable of being predicated with complete accuracy until the disclosure takes place, but I cannot for my part think that the evidence can properly be criticized as insufficient simply on that score. It may be that it will lead, whether by way of original inquiry or by way of confirmation, directly to the identification of a member of the ring or of the Crown servants involved. It may be that it will lead to the identification of someone not at present even suspected as a member of the dealing ring or to the revelation of a second and at present unidentified ring of dealers. It may be entirely inconclusive or serve only for the purpose of elimination. None of these results appears to me, on analysis, to disqualify it as information ‘necessary…for the prevention of …crime’, for, if the exception in s10 is to have any sensible operation, it cannot, in my judgment, be an essential characteristic of such information that the result to which it will lead should be capable of being predicated with precision before it is even known what the information is. For these reasons and for the reasons contained in the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Griffiths, I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.


总共10页     [1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   9   [10]  
上一页     下一页    

声明:本论文由《法律图书馆》网站收藏,
仅供学术研究参考使用,
版权为原作者所有,未经作者同意,不得转载。
法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库