High Court grants an order confirming the adverse assessment and sanctions issued by the Central Bank, concerning the use of inside information in the acquisition of shares, on the grounds that: (a) the decision maker adhered to the procedures, and natural and constitutional justice, and (b) the sanctions imposed - a fine of €75,000 and a 5-year disqualification from being concerned in the management of, or having a qualified holding in, any regulated financial service provider - were proportionate in all the circumstances.
Order 84B of the Rules of the Superior Courts – Regulation 44 of the Market Abuse (Directive 2003/6/EC) Regulations 2005 – order confirming adverse assessment – specified sanctions – assessment arises from a decision of the Deputy Governor (Financial Regulation) of the Central Bank of Ireland – suspected contraventions of the regulations – use of inside information to acquire shared for retirement fund – standard of proof required – mental ingredient required for a suspected contravention – beyond reasonable doubt – if there is proof that the respondent had inside information then it would be presumed that it was used within the meaning of the regulations – right to rebut the presumption – establish that the inside information did not play a role in his decision making – assessor was satisfied that the enforcement division proved beyond reasonable doubt that the suspected contraventions had been proved – respondent chose not to give evidence to rebut the presumption – sanctions – public caution - monetary penalty of €75,000 – disqualification for a period of 5 years – direction to pay costs – did not appeal adverse assessment – uncontested application – statement of grounds of assessor’s assessment – summary statement of the evidence – statement of the sanctions – court must satisfy itself that there was adherence to the procedures and natural and constitutional justice – court has discretion to vary or set aside the assessment and sanctions – unless it considers that no other reasonable decision maker could have imposed the sanction, the court should confirm it – assessment and the manner in which the sanctions were decided - complies with procedures and natural justice - assessor considered the gravity of the respondent’s offence - whether or not the respondent’s conduct had any effect on the integrity of the market and investor confidence – aggravating or mitigating factors – dissuasive effect of sanctions – cooperation – age of respondent a factor – retired from activity in the market – court satisfied that that the sanctions decided on are proportionate – order confirming both the adverse assessment and specified sanctions.