The Supreme Court sets aside the Court of Appeal's acquittal in a case on aggravated fraud and market manipulation

Justices: Webster, Falkanger, Noer, Bergh, Thyness

An agreement on the sale of shares in a large company contained a price guarantee provision, which would take effect if, for a period after the purchase, the buyer sold or bought shares in the company from other sellers at a higher price. The Court of Appeal found that a share sale had taken place that triggered the price guarantee, and that the sale had been kept from the previous sellers, preventing them from invoking the price guarantee. The broker who had managed the sales work was acquitted on the charge of aggravated fraud, see section 271 of the Penal Code 1902, cf. section 270 subsection 1 (1), cf. subsection 2, as the majority of the Court of Appeal did not consider it substantiated that he had acted with indirect intent, see section 22 subsection 1 (b) of the Penal Code. However, based on the facts that the majority had found proven, it had a clear cause also to consider whether he had acted with possible intent, see section 22 subsection 1 (c). This was not done. The Court of Appeal's acquittal on the charge of aggravated negligent fraud under section 271 (a) of the Penal Code 1902, and of market manipulation under section 17-3 subsection 1, cf. section 3-8 subsection 1 of the Securities Trading Act, was based on a too narrow interpretation of the provisions on negligence in section 23 of the Penal Code. The Court of Appeal's judgment and hearing were set aside.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)