THE CORPORATIONS LAW

CHAPTER 7 - SECURITIES

PART 7.11 - CONDUCT IN RELATION TO SECURITIES

Division 2A - Insider trading

SECTION 1002T   PROSECUTIONS AND DEFENCES  

1002T(1)  [Proof by prosecution]  

In a prosecution of a person for an act or omission that is alleged to constitute a contravention of subsection 1002G(2) or (3), it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the non-existence of facts or circumstances which, if they existed, would, by virtue of section 1002H, 1002J, 1002K, 1002L, 1002M, 1002N, 1002P, 1002Q, 1002R or 1002S, preclude the act or omission from constituting a contravention of subsection 1002G(2) or (3), as the case may be, but it is a defence if the Court is satisfied that the facts or circumstances existed.

1002T(2)  [Defences to prosecution under sec 1002G(2)]  

In a prosecution brought against a person for an offence against subsection 1002G(2) because the person entered into, or procured another person to enter into, a transaction or agreement at a time when certain information was in the first-mentioned person's possession:

(a)  it is a defence if the Court is satisfied that the information came into the first-mentioned person's possession solely as a result of the information having been made known as mentioned in subparagraph 1002B(2)(b)(i); and

(b)  it is a defence if the Court is satisfied that the other party to the transaction or agreement knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the information before entering into the transaction or agreement.

1002T(3)  [Defences to prosecution under sec 1002G(3)]  

In a prosecution against a person for an offence against subsection 1002G(3) because the person communicated information, or caused information to be communicated, to another person:

(a)  it is a defence if the Court is satisfied that the information came into the first-mentioned person's possession solely as a result of the information having been made known as mentioned in subparagraph 1002B(2)(b)(i); and

(b)  it is a defence if the Court is satisfied that the other person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the information before the information was communicated.