It's not true the "people do it anyway". It is true that some people do it anyway. Big, big difference. Also, it makes no sense to base judgement of the law on

It's not true the "people do it anyway". It is true that some people do it anyway. Big, big difference. Also, it makes no sense to base judgement of the law on the impossibly high standard of 100% compliance. Indeed, any law that does achieve a compliance level that approaches 100% will almost certainly be accompanied by an enforcement regime so terrifyingly intrusive that it's hard to imagine a threat to civil society that could be greater. What does make sense is widespread use of the kind of statistical analysis that makes patterns of insider trading very hard to conceal, along with enforcement that includes far-reaching chains of disgorgement in cases where convictions do stick. Basically, if you're you're foolish enough to do business with a fund that is producing returns that are inexplicable absent reliance on insider trading, you could find yourself loosing large sums to the government if and when the fund's operators are taken down.