Marine company’s ex-deputy chairman acquitted after 15‑year legal battle

Marine company’s ex-deputy chairman acquitted after 15‑year legal battle

High Court says the defence has created doubt on the prosecution's case.

Counsel A Srimurugan (right) explaining to Ramesh Rajaratnam
Counsel A Srimurugan (right) explaining to Ramesh Rajaratnam the verdict delivered by the High Court, in the presence of lawyer Miguel Sequerah.
KUALA LUMPUR:
The High Court has acquitted former Malaysian Merchant Marine Bhd executive deputy chairman Ramesh Rajaratnam of an insider trading charge dating back 15 years.

Justice K Muniandy, in allowing Ramesh’s appeal, overturned his conviction by the sessions court seven years ago, ruling that the defence had successfully created doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Ramesh had been accused of disposing five million shares in the company – worth RM1.5 million – on Jan 11, 2010, based on information not available to the public.

Delivering his broad grounds, Muniandy said Ramesh had been deprived of a fair trial.

He said the disposal of shares was not based on insider information but on a previous public declaration of wanting to sell the shares.

Muniandy, now a Court of Appeal judge, said that when two versions of events are presented, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.

The High Court ordered the return of Ramesh’s passport and the release of his RM50,000 bail to him.

Lawyers A Srimurugan and Miguel Sequerah appeared for Ramesh while Hasley Tajudin and Law Wen Zhen represented the Securities Commission Malaysia.

On Sept 11, 2019, the sessions court convicted Ramesh of three charges of insider trading under Section 188(2)(a) of the Capital Market and Services Act 2007.

He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and fined RM3 million on each charge with the prison terms to run concurrently.

On May 20, 2021, the High Court allowed Ramesh’s appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence on all three charges.

At the Court of Appeal in 2024, the Securities Commission, with the public prosecutor’s consent, pursued its appeal on only one charge.

The appellate court then remitted the case to the High Court for a rehearing on the charge, giving rise to the present proceedings.

Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram

Subscribe to our newsletter and get news delivered to your mailbox.