Former deputy chairman’s attempt to appeal fresh insider trading trial order fails

raham Au represented Ramesh in the proceedings, while Hasley Tajudin, Law Wen Zhen, and Danial Ariff Tung acted on behalf of the Securities Commission Malaysia.
The Court of Appeal emphasized that the High Court, as an appellate body, could not solely base its decision on errors made by the trial court. Justice Wong Kian Kheong highlighted that the High Court had a duty under Section 316 of the CPC to thoroughly evaluate the merits of the case. In a judgment overturning Ramesh’s acquittal, Wong stressed that it was essential for the High Court to assess whether the trial court’s errors led to a miscarriage of justice, as outlined in Section 422 of the CPC.
In a previous ruling, Justice Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera, joined by Justice Ahmad Zaidi Ibrahim, allowed the prosecution’s appeal and directed that the case be reheard by a new High Court judge. Vazeer underscored that despite the procedural irregularities in the original sessions court judgment, the High Court erred in granting Ramesh an acquittal.
Ramesh was initially charged in the Kuala Lumpur sessions court in 2015 with three counts of insider trading under the Capital Markets and Services Act 2007. Following a trial, he was convicted on all charges in 2019 and sentenced to five years in prison with a RM3 million fine for each count, to be served concurrently. Insider trading is punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine of no less than RM1 million.
In May 2021, the High Court accepted Ramesh’s appeal and quashed his conviction and sentence for all three charges. However, the Securities Commission Malaysia and the public prosecutor opted to pursue an appeal on one charge at the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal bench maintained that there was no violation of natural justice in the previous panel’s conclusions. Ramesh’s bid for a review of the decision was dismissed as the court found no grounds for overturning the judgment. Despite the complex legal proceedings, the scrutiny of the case underscores the commitment to upholding judicial integrity and ensuring justice is served in matters of insider trading cases.