QUESTION ONE A
The most notable offense committed by Masud in his dealings as the lead clinical technical in the pharmaceutical company is in respect to market abuse. Market manipulation is also known as the intentional and deliberate effort to meddle with the fair and free operation of a market by mainly fabricating misleading and false information or appearance concerning the market, price, or security of a specific commodity(Ajit, 2014)
This omission can occur in various ways, which can mainly entail spreading wrong and misleading information to influence trading decisions by prospective investors or affiliate stakeholders unfairly. Under the United Kingdom Jurisdiction, such offense is generally regarded as criminal acts; however, the Government and associate regulative institutions were dissatisfied with the over-reliance on criminal liability. It warranted a high threshold of the burden of proof for a corporation or an individual to be held culpable for misuse of information resulting in very few successful prosecutions. Thus, the UK government enacted the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (‘FSMA’), which established the Financial Services Authority (‘FSA’). Mandated and given the power to investigate and, if possible, impose civil penalties based on the civil burden of proof. Accordingly, FSA has come up with four conditions that have to be met before an act is considered to be an abuse of information regarding Masud situation. They include that the information must be in tandem with the unethical behavior of the individual or corporation. The information must not be readily available in nature. The information must be relevant, and the information must have the aspect of the disclosure. In effect, it is evident that Masud, by his action of falsifying information about the impending validation of the pharmaceutical product, meets all the four requirements. Hence he is culpable of a civil action as he knew very well that the drug failed its initial trial, and would not be accredited by relevant regulatory institutions; thus, he is prima facie guilty of providing and spreading false information the expense of potential investors. This position has been upheld and affirmed in the past decisions of (David Massey v Financial Services Authority:  UKUT 49 (TCC) where it was held that the mere aspect whether such information would affect the market equilibrium was considered to be sufficient to amount to civil liability as regards abuse of information. The position was later affirmed in (David John Hobbs v The Financial Services Authority: FS/2010/0024 ). It has recently been the guiding principle and precedence in handling such omission as abuse of information.
Irrespectively, there is two primary defense available for an act of abuse of information. They include that the behavior of spreading the information in question did not in any way add up to the direct and indirect abuse of the market and that secondly, the defendant took all reasonable actions and precautions in exercising due diligence to avoid any indirect or direct engagement to market abuse intentionally.