Criminal Intention in Saudi Capital Market Law

The Capital Market Law imposed imprisonment sentencing for violators of articles 49 and 50 that deal with manipulation and insider trading and public prosecutors are required to file a case against violators, implying that these action are economic or financial crimes. Interestingly, the dispute committee, after analyzing their opinions in several criminal cases, had two ways in construing those two articles of fraud, 49 & 50. When the violator affects the price of the security immensely they criminalize the action and impose high fines in addition to damages costs and indemnification on defendants. The disputes committee approach for determining whether the violation was a criminal action is by fulfilling three elements; which are the act of violation, the intention of the criminal and the law that has been violated. The intention element is mainly the issue, where the dispute committee always assumes that the violator intended the criminal act by stating in several opinions that: economic crimes are intended whenever they are committed, and requires the defendant to prove she is not guilty. However, when the prosecutor orders imprisonment to be as part of the punishment of the violator, the committee is more careful when applying the law and shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution in regards to the element of intention. The committee requires evidence and facts that proof or are basis to infer intention only when there is an request imprisonment as a punishment, and does not require the same when there is no imprisonment in the prosecution order.