2 - prove the guilt of insider trading Granting this kind...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Insider trading: Tipping the scales, The Economist, 15 October, 2011 In the United States, law enforcement is cracking down more and more heavily on insider trading. Since the first criminal prosecution in 1961, both the amount of arrests and the cost of the prosecution have increased incredibly. This is fantastic. Insider is detrimental to the market, but oddly these often extremely lucrative tips have received less attention than what I consider less immoral crimes. These increasingly harsh punishments are absolutely necessary to dissuade insider trading. What I have a hard time with, however, is the invasion of privacy that this article claims (and may very well be true) is necessary. Instinctively, I am sharply opposed to wiretapping, email sniffing, and other invasive measures that the SEC has employed in order to successfully
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: prove the guilt of insider trading. Granting this kind of power to law enforcement is scary, and I hope warrants for this kind of investigation remain difficult to obtain. Additionally, hedge-fund managers are complaining that this kind of investigation is hurting their ability to communicate with company executives. But again, I’m conflicted. Insider trading is very hard to prove. While the U.S. has been cracking down heavily in recent years, the rest of the world is as well. Developing countries are progressing this much slower, however. Russia has only recently made insider trading a criminal offence. In want of solidifying the global market, more universal enforcement is needed....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online