It doesn't. All these cases are hard to prosecute (or so prosecutors think) because it is often hard to prove intent. So prosecutors have to be aggressive in g

It doesn't. All these cases are hard to prosecute (or so prosecutors think) because it is often hard to prove intent. So prosecutors have to be aggressive in getting people to flip (and in the media, and building patterns of prosecutions for a novel offence) which often leads to wildly inconsistent sentencing. I don't think I have seen a group of offences in this area where the sentencing seemed right across the board. It often makes no sense at all (even the decision of who to prosecute seems wrong, there was a case in the UK where a witness to an insider trading case was literally in court, giving evidence and admitted to crimes...nothing happened...he also walked from any prosecution in that case despite him netting tens of millions from insider trading).