Investors insider dealing and market handling or spreading false information to mislead can get rid of the sanctions currently taking advantage of differences in legislation between the 27 EU Member States. Authorities in some countries have no real powers of sanction and no other criminal sanctions for certain crimes of insider dealing and market manipulation. Effective sanctions can have a strong deterrent effect and strengthen the integrity of EU financial markets.
This is why the European Commission today proposed rules valid throughout the EU to ensure a minimum criminal sanctions for prosecuting insider dealing and market manipulation. For the first time, the Commission uses its new powers under the Treaty of Lisbon to enforce EU policy by criminal sanctions.
The proposed Directive provides that Member States take the necessary measures to ensure that criminal offenses consisting of insider dealing and market manipulation are punishable by criminal penalties. Member States also need to criminally punish those who assist, abet or advise on market abuse, as well as attempts to commit such offenses. The Directive complements the proposed regulation on market abuse made today, which improves the legal framework of the EU and strengthen administrative penalties.
Viviane Reding, EU Justice has stated that “the Commission, in addition to effective supervision of markets, today proposed strengthening the enforcement of EU rules against insider trading and manipulation of market by criminal law. The criminal conduct should not be tolerated in European financial markets “, he said.
The Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, meanwhile, added that “sanctions against perpetrators of abuse are too diverse market today and have the necessary deterrent effect. By imposing criminal sanctions to prosecute serious market abuse across the EU, we send a clear signal to deter potential offenders, who commit insider trading or market manipulation, face jail time and criminal records. These proposals will increase the integrity of the market, promote investor confidence and facilitate conditions of fair competition in the market. “
The failures occurred last week in the service of sending and receiving data from Blackberry could generate changes in the mobile market with low barriers to systems that guarantee users the functionality of their equipment.
Computer systems specialist Daniel Becerril Lopez said in an interview that while Blackberry is focused on the business sector, the drawbacks are an obstacle to sales growth in the future, and a lack of control in the company.
The school also said that many employers prefer these devices for their confidence in the service, however, generated failures cause users to “move” to Android or Apple computers.
“I think over time the company will absorb Apple, it has little chance for its technology, as long as they remain good and not have this kind of problem,” he added.
López Becerril said the failure occurred on Oct. 11 in the central switch, which brought down its email service and messaging in Europe and in parts of Latin America, India, Middle East and Africa, was caused by saturation of information in the system.
The expert said that while Research In Motion (RIM), maker of BlackBerry, announced the return of its network by not having a redundant system to meet new new saturation can cause system failures in the future.
And many media and BBC ourselves, we compared the disaster of the Fukushima nuclear power in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami that struck the country a few weeks ago with the explosion of an oil rig company British Petroleum ( BP) in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, which caused the largest oil spill in U.S. history.
Some of the similarities between the two disasters are obvious. Especially the consequences that have and will have both the environment and the economy.
It is also like the way the two companies, BP and the owner of Japanese nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), managed to supply information after disasters.
I am referring to the latter matches because this blog is about publishing and media issues.
Many suspect that both BP at the time, as now Tepco, do not disclose all the information you have on the scope of disasters.
I remember the frustration of President Obama when he said the directors of BP, Tony Hayward, and would not be on the payroll if he had worked for the White House, after the multinational erroneously announced several times that had controlled the oil spill .
“What the hell is going on?” angrily rebuked Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan to the heads of Tepco when he heard about a new nuclear plant fire, just an hour after it started.
The initial plan of 2009 BP Exploration said it was unlikely that an accidental spill occurred and provided no activities harmful to fish or fish habitat, a miscalculation accepted at the time by U.S. authorities.
Tepco, meanwhile, admitted that between 1977 and 2002 inspections falsified reports on its nuclear facilities and compliance with safety standards.
It is up to, if you understand, that from the standpoint of business, companies do not make known information that will be harmful, so why let them control the monopoly of information about these disasters?
In different parts of the world have raised voices calling for governments to take the responsibility to report when disasters affect the common good, a kind of state intervention in private companies responsible for the disasters that have the purpose of informing and alerting the public more beyond the vagaries of stock markets.