Another side of the same coin would be that since CEO "implicitly always has access to privileged information", it is up to trader to prove legality of specific

Another side of the same coin would be that since CEO "implicitly always has access to privileged information", it is up to trader to prove legality of specific trade. Of course this is against innocent unless proven otherwise dogma, but still perfectly valid different side of the coin. Which I find amusing. This is just one of the many places where legality of an action greatly depends on consensus and established practices, which can change overnight. For example court ruling based on implicitness of access to privileged information would effectively eliminate high ranking officers from trading altogether.