[Regulator]

Once again, you have done just the opposite from what you intended. Simply because Congress authorizes an agency and its regulations does not make the regulations part of the criminal code, Title 18.

Your Findlaw only alludes to how the the SEC can make an accusation in Federal court; it can impose no criminal sanction, i.e., find you guilty of any crime. That would be up to the Federal court and its jury (you have heard of trial by jury, right, Genius?).

All the other references are to civil penalties for violating agency law. Such a fine will not leave you or your company with any criminal record in the Federal Judiciary; there will only be a record of an enforcement action at a particular agency, such as the SEC or the FAA or the NTSB, for example. These will only affect licensure privileges, in most cases. Companies get fined all the time: go to the FAA website and look at the fines that the major airlines routinely have to pay. No one goes to jail, no has a criminal record, no jury has to sit and listen, the only thing that happens is the agency attorneys make their case in front of the administrative law judge. Same with pilots; enforcement actions happen all the time, people are found to have violated a regulation, but the only thing that happens is either a fine or loss of license. Such an action does not result in a conviction for either a misdemeanor or a felony. As such, it is not "criminal".

Fines can indeed be part of a criminal penalty, but that is not the case with agency sanctions, since by definition, violations of them are not crimes. IOW fines can be incurred under both civil and criminal cases. But it isn't the same thing.

As far as chatting with the Federal attorneys who wrote some agency rules, I don't need to bother. The guy who brought me into the world was one of those guys, and he and I have had long talks about the ALJ system and its fundamental Un-Constitutionality, even in its current state.

By the way...

1: a punitive or coercive measure or action that results from failure to comply with a law, rule, or order

Note again that the distinction is made between a law and a rule, even here.

[Bonaparte]

I'm going to give you a very brief primer on insider trading and relevant law. I truly hope this will clear up your continuing confusion.

There are two types of insider trading. One is legal, the other is not.

The legal version is when corporate insiders, such as officers, directors or employees buy or sell stock in their own companies. When corporate insiders trade in their own securities, they must report their trades to the SEC, through filings (form 4, I believe). These trades cannot be based on non-public information.

The illegal type of insider trading involves buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped," and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

The relevant Securities law and case law on insider trading are as follows:

The 1934 Securities Exchange Act addressed insider trading directly through Section 16(b) and indirectly through Section 10(b).

Section 16(b) prohibits short-swing profits (profits realized in any period less than six months) by corporate insiders in their own corporation's stock, except in very limited circumstance. It applies only to directors or officers of the corporation and those holding greater than 10% of the stock and is designed to prevent insider trading by those most likely to be privy to important corporate information.

Section 10(b) makes it unlawful for any person "to use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security registered on a national securities exchange or any security not so registered, any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe."

(And there are other sections of the 1934 act which come into play, such as 14(e), but this is a primer, so I'll be brief.)

To implement Section 10(b), the SEC duly and lawfully adopted Rule 10b-5, which provides, in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly

(a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

(c) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security.

These broad anti-fraud provisions, make it unlawful to engage in fraud or misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. It is on the basis of those provisions that the courts have exercised their lawful authority to make US case law on insider trading.

As I've pointed out to you previously at linked pages, Congress has twice passed major legislation addressing, among other things, the penalties for this violation:

The Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984, Public Law 98-376 [H.R.559], August 10, 1984

and

The Insider Trading and Securities Enforcement Act of 1988, Public Law 100-704 [H.R.5133] November 19, 1988.

The substantive law of insider trading is judge-made case law which on several occasions has reached the USSC. Let that sink in. Give it a minute to register. Not all the laws dealing with insider trading are found in the US Code, only some of them. It's just a legal fact. You don't have to like it, but please stop arguing about it.

The core principles for a determination of illegal insider trading are set forth in three USSC cases (yep, there are more, but again, this is a primer for your benefit):

Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222 (1980). This opinion relied on the existence of a fiduciary duty which would itself create a duty to disclose, the breach of which would give rise to a violation of law.

Dirks v. SEC, 463 U.S. 646 (1983). This opinion establishes that the insider breaches that fiduciary duty if he acts against the corporate interest; and that the recipient of the information has an obligation to refrain from trading only if he knows the guilty circumstances under which the information was passed along to him.

United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997). This opinion made clear that the breach of duty by which the information is obtained and its illegal use, could involve a duty of trust and confidence other than between a corporate insider and the shareholders of the corporation whose securities are traded.

If you still want to believe there is no legitimate basis for insider trading convictions in the US Code or federal case law or SEC regs, fine. Believe whatever you want. I'm sure Mr. Waksal will be glad to know that at least somebody believes his conviction on insider trading charges is a miscarriage of justice and a violation of his constitutional right to cheat his shareholders.

This is my last post to you on this subject. Say whatever you want.