Insider trading cases often pose significant challenges for prosecution.The legal landscape lacks a clear definition of insider trading.
Proving intent is a formidable hurdle in these cases. The prosecution faces resource limitations in enforcing the law effectively.
Insider trading falls under two main theories: classical and misappropriation.Classical insider trading involves corporate insiders using nonpublic information for personal gain.
Misappropriation occurs when external individuals exploit confidential information.Examples like the Capital One case highlight the nuances of insider trading.
Congress has never explicitly defined and outlawed insider trading. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) handles civil litigation.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) manages criminal cases.Civil cases result in fines, while criminal cases can lead to prison time.
Civil cases require proving nonpublic information use in trading. Intent, known as mens rea, is crucial in criminal cases.
Many defendants claim they lacked bad intentions, posing challenges. Prosecutors must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly violated the law.
Common perception: Prosecutions target big-name individuals (e.g., "Emperor Palpatines"). Reality: Few high-profile cases; many involve less well-known offenders.