3 ms·

I just found the SEC's official justification and amended my original comment above. I don't think you're going to win an argument against the SEC.

• vostok 8y ago
  You may be interested in reading Salman v. United States [1]. It's a dense read so here's a news article [2] that I'll quote. > The justices rejected claims of defense lawyers who argued that there was no crime because no money exchanged hands between the insider and the stock trader. > Instead, the court said exchanges within a family are like gifts and have value, even if no dollars are paid. Sounds a lot like misappropriation is the concern and not merely having access to information that others don't. This is a case that's widely seen as making it easier to prosecute insider trading. [1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-628/opinion3.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/580/15-628/opini... [2] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-supreme-court-insider-trading-20161206-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-supreme-court-insider-...
  • allenz 8y ago
    True, it's easier to prosecute insider trading as a breach of fiduciary duty to the company. But why were insider trading laws passed, and why is insider trading prosecuted? The SEC answers that "moral imperatives have driven the development of insider trading law in the United States."[1] The prosecutor against Salman, Preet Bharara, stated that "today's decision is a victory for fair markets and those who believe that the system should not be rigged."[2] [1] https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speecharchive/1998/spch221.htm https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speecharchive/1998/spch221.h... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/business/dealbook/supreme-court-insider-trading.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/business/dealbook/supreme...