Write your thoughts on this discussion?

This weeks topic on securities violation such as spoofing and insider trading is important based on the fact that they are dishonest to the public. Public trading is meant to be an impartial act between two parties or more that have the same knowledge and understanding of the trading, however; spoofing and insider trading are deceptive methods that seek to harm the naive traders. Spoofing is preventable in my opinion if the correct research is done before placing an order or taking part of a trade, however; insider trading is not. Insider trading is exclusive and closed to the public eye. It is given and not taken. The knowledge gained from insider trading is a bargaining tip that only seek to benefit the party with the knowledge. The effect of insider trading is insurmountable because the general public is affected not just one individual. Section 16 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 requires that when an "insider" (defined as all officers, directors, and 10% owners) buys the corporation's stock and sells it within six months, all of the profits must go to the company (Kennon, 2019). This is meant to act as a safeguard against insider training, however; without due diligence it is impossible to enforce. United States v. Stewart, 323 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) was a securities fraud case by the Securities and Exchange Commission versus Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic. The case was about the violation of insider trading laws that Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic had commit. Peter Bacanovic was a broker for Martha Stewart and has classified information about the company ImClone that were not available to general public. This resulted in Martha Steward to sell her shares in the company before a public announcement was made. Because of the information gained, Martha Steward avoided a loss of $45,673 after the companys stock dropped 16% after the general announcement (Ali & Gregoriou, 2009). In 2004, Martha Steward and Peter Bacanovic receive a five-months in prison along with heft fines for both individuals (Scannell, 2004). I believe that Martha Steward should not have been sentence due to the fact that she received information from her own personal broker and chose to act on it which is not a criminal offense. However, the decision to lie during investigation is why she deserves to be fined.