Criminal Justice Act 1993
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
53 Defences.
(1) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities if he shows— (a) that he did not at the time expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information in question was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities, or (b) that at the time he believed on reasonable grounds that the information had been disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information, or (c) that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information. (2) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of encouraging another person to deal in securities if he shows— (a) that he did not at the time expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information in question was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities, or (b) that at the time he believed on reasonable grounds that the information had been or would be disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information, or (c) that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information. (3) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of a disclosure of information if he shows— (a) that he did not at the time expect any person, because of the disclosure, to deal in securities in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of section 52; or (b) that, although he had such an expectation at the time, he did not expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities. (4) Schedule 1 (special defences) shall have effect. (5) The Treasury may by order amend Schedule 1. (6) In this section references to a profit include references to the avoidance of a loss.
53 Defences.
(1) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of dealing in securities if he shows— (a) that he did not at the time expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information in question was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities, or (b) that at the time he believed on reasonable grounds that the information had been disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information, or (c) that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information. (2) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of encouraging another person to deal in securities if he shows— (a) that he did not at the time expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information in question was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities, or (b) that at the time he believed on reasonable grounds that the information had been or would be disclosed widely enough to ensure that none of those taking part in the dealing would be prejudiced by not having the information, or (c) that he would have done what he did even if he had not had the information. (3) An individual is not guilty of insider dealing by virtue of a disclosure of information if he shows— (a) that he did not at the time expect any person, because of the disclosure, to deal in securities in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (3) of section 52; or (b) that, although he had such an expectation at the time, he did not expect the dealing to result in a profit attributable to the fact that the information was price-sensitive information in relation to the securities. (4) Schedule 1 (special defences) shall have effect. (5) The Treasury may by order amend Schedule 1. (6) In this section references to a profit include references to the avoidance of a loss.
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.