Saturday, October 04, 2008

Securities and Futures Act

Does the financial institute break any of the provisions below, in their marketing of the structured products?

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-289&doctitle=SECURITIES%20AND%20FUTURES%20ACT&date=latest&method=part

SFA's Section 199 (False or misleading statements, etc.) reads:

No person shall make a statement, or disseminate information, that is false or misleading in a material particular and is likely —
(a) to induce other persons to subscribe for securities;
(b) to induce the sale or purchase of securities by other persons; or
(c) to have the effect of raising, lowering, maintaining or stabilising the market price of securities,
if, when he makes the statement or disseminates the information —
(i) he does not care whether the statement or information is true or false; or
(ii) he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the statement or information is false or misleading in a material particular.
[SIA, s. 99; Aust. Corporations 2001, s. 999]

SFA's Section 200 (Fraudulently inducing persons to deal in securities) reads:
(1) No person shall —
(a) by making or publishing any statement, promise or forecast that he knows or ought reasonably to have known to be misleading, false or deceptive;
(b) by any dishonest concealment of material facts;
(c) by the reckless making or publishing of any statement, promise or forecast that is misleading, false or deceptive; or
(d) by recording or storing in, or by means of, any mechanical, electronic or other device information that he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular,
induce or attempt to induce another person to deal in securities.
(2) In any proceedings against a person for a contravention of subsection (1) constituted by recording or storing information as mentioned in subsection (1) (d), it is a defence if it is established that, at the time when the defendant so recorded or stored the information, he had no reasonable grounds for expecting that the information would be available to any other person.
(3) In any proceedings against a person for a contravention of subsection (1), the opinion of any registered or public accountant as to the financial position of any company at any time or during any period in respect of which he has made an audit or examination of the affairs of the company according to recognised audit practice shall be admissible, for any party to the proceedings, as evidence of the financial position of the company at that time or during that period, notwithstanding that the opinion is based in whole or in part on book-entries, documents or vouchers or on written or verbal statements by other persons.
[SIA, s. 100; Companies, s. 404 (4)]

By SFA's definition:
"securities" means —
(a) debentures or stocks issued or proposed to be issued by a government;
(b) debentures, stocks or shares issued or proposed to be issued by a corporation or body unincorporate;
(c) any right, option or derivative in respect of any such debentures, stocks or shares;
(d) any right under a contract for differences or under any other contract the purpose or pretended purpose of which is to secure a profit or avoid a loss by reference to fluctuations in —
(i) the value or price of any such debentures, stocks or shares;
(ii) the value or price of any group of any such debentures, stocks or shares; or
(iii) an index of any such debentures, stocks or shares;
(e) any unit in a collective investment scheme;
(f) any unit in a business trust; or
(g) any derivative of a unit in a business trust,

but does not include —
(i) futures contracts which are traded on a futures market;
(ii) bills of exchange;
(iii) promissory notes; or
(iv) certificates of deposit issued by a bank or finance company whether situated in Singapore or elsewhere;

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Tan
Just realised yesterday the fund, united msf-diversigrowth(SGD), which I invested was also linked with Lehman. The current UOB banker said it is no longer 100% capital protected now, maybe only 70~80% and if I sell I will lost the diff. But, in the past, the UOB banker(already resigned)who sold me this product said it was 100% capital-protected and the capital will never affected unless UOB bank go bankrupt. I was told my capital only invested with UOB for the (x)baskets of stocks only, and never was told it was in fact invested in other 3rd party bank(eg. Lehman) or what called 'cdo','cdn' etc. This is clearly 'daylight' cheating. Who is supposed to give accountability now? Do you think it is reasonable for UOB bank to stand-up to compensate the losses to its customers. If not, where is that credibility and justice in Singapore? Many of us who affected (because of misled and distorted info) are very angry and grievous over it. I don't think the investor/customer should bear the loss or blame, right?

Btw, can you recommend who I shall approach or petition to redress my case? Is there an online or proper procedure to making appeal/petition? You think the MAS is willing and ready to help us?

One ridiculous matter to share. When asked who others involved besides Lehman, the current UOB banker said cannot disclose/reveal. Sound rediculous, right? For it is like we are waiting to be slaughtered without knowing who the slaughterer is.

Thanks for you time and help,

Rgds,
EC

Blog Archive