INTRODUCTION
Insider trading, fundamentally, is buying and selling shares using material non-public information on a company – making trades based on something that average investors don’t have access to. The very idea undermines the time-honored principles of fairness, openness and honesty on which today’s capital markets were constructed. It is the objective of this part to elucidate a conceptual, economic, legal and regulatory context for insider trading in general and to discriminate between illegal insider trading and legal information-based trading that is fundamental to efficient markets.1 Economically, or at least in principle, the securities markets are presumed to be based on information symmetry though not necessarily equality of access to it. Security prices are anticipated to incorporate all available public information such that investors can trade in a rational manner. Insider trading unbalances this equilibrium by granting a few market participants the possibility to profit from non-public price-sensitive information -leading to asymmetric information.
Insider trading, legally speaking, isn’t owning secret information; it’s using that knowledge in a way that’s forbidden by law as a violation of legal/duty relationship. The law does not absolutely outlaw insider trading as such but trades that are execution of fiduciary, statutory and contractual obligations. The inside part of insider trading, then, is not simply about status; it refers to the misuse of information instead. This difference is important to understand why directors of a company can sell shares post disclosure compliances and pre trading window compliances or not, whereas the same act becomes illegal if PSU is holding when such an action takes place.2
From the regulator’s perspective, insider trading would be considered as a market abuse. Insider trading is considered to be a serious offence by both regulators for example the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in case of India and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) matters related with US, since it goes at the root of investor confidence and market integrity. Consequently, the regulators have sought to regulate the misuse of inside or confidential information by requiring the disclosure of holdings and imposing a variety of civil or criminal sanctions to discourage such behavior.3
It is essential to make a conceptual distinction between illegal insider trading and legal information-based trading. Modern capital markets rely on analysis, knowledge and informed bets. The best analysts, the large financial institutions and managers generally use superior analytical acumen, historical data and to a certain extent publicly available data to influence their investment decisions. This kind of trading, so long as it results in informational advantages, is permissible and even desirable. Courts and regulators have long expressly held that trading on public information, independent research or skill does not constitute insider trading.
This distinction was established in the seminal U.S. decision titled DIRKS v SEC [1983] which subsequently went to the Supreme Court of the U.S., where it was held by that court, “that not all recipients of inside information are equally at fault,” and thus culpable: liability arises when a fiduciary duty has been violated and the insider who violates their fiduciary duty receives from it a “personal benefit.” The Indian courts have likewise emphasized that the simple access to information is not good enough, and it must be proven that such information was unpublished, price sensitive and further abused for trading.4
Another element that is fundamental to the definition of insider trading is materiality. An information is material if a reasonable investor would find it significant in making an investment decision. For example, such information may relate to mergers or acquisitions, financial results, dividends, material changes in capital structure, large litigation matters and regulatory consents. Indian law and U.S. law acknowledge that merely because information is not disclosed to the public, it does not mean that such information will fall within the definition of “material” or “inside” information; in order to qualify, such material must be of a nature which would result in an impact on the price of securities.5
Historically, liability for insider trading has been based on the fiduciary duty owed by an insider to the company or its shareholders. Fiduciary Directors, officers and even employees are considered fiduciaries to whom duties of loyalty and confidentiality are owed. Insider trading is an unauthorized use of that information in violation of this duty. But current case law has extended the line to include third-parties who steal information in violation of a duty owed to the source.6
Insider trading in India is mainly regulated by SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 which provides for a comprehensive legislative framework. These rules consider insider trading as trading in securities on the basis of ‘’unpublished price sensitive information” and provide for “possession-based” test, subject to certain defenses. The transition from the provision of 1992 regulations to the framework of 2015 was an important leap which made Indian law in consonance with international best practices.7 The judiciary has had an active role in shaping concepts of insider trading in India. Intent or motive i.e., whether dishonesty was intended when penalty provisions are to be interpreted, has been considered by the Securities Appellate Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Agrawal v. SEBI (2003). While the Tribunal found the facts, the case demonstrated how draconian implementation can be at odds with political economy. Some Supreme Court judges have accepted that there is a need to stamp out insider trading, regardless of whether or not men’s rea has to be shown in order to levy civil fines under the SEBI Act. Subsequently in SEBI vs Shriram Mutual Fund (2006), the Supreme Court categorically stated that offences of insider trading are only violations envisaging serious punishment without any proof of motive.8
In short, insider trading is the taking advantage of the misuse of confidential information in breach of a duty towards the source. It is in a status sense and also more broadly, that is the economic fairness and moral obligation (and possibly legal task) end of it.
INDIA: REGULATORY LANDSCAPE UNDER SEBI REGULATIONS
The law on insider trading in India is mainly regulated by the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 and amended substantially in 2015. The definitions contained in the Regulations are so defined specifically in the Act, which should serve to minimize any possible interpretational uncertainty and enhance enforcement of regulations.9
Insider trading had been narrowly defined under the 1992 Regulations, generally being limited to individuals with inside understanding (i.e. company insiders including directors, officers and employees). But pressing enforcement matters and changing market practice revealed weaknesses in the former framework. This led SEBI to promulgate the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, which brought in a much clearer definition and scope.10
According to the 2015 Regulations, an “insider” means anyone who is:
• A connected person, or
• In possession / possession / excess of Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI).
This two-stage test represents a move from an “eminent status” to a “dominant possession” standard, which would allow SEBI to take action against individuals who misuse UPSI even if they are not in privity with the company. This even extends to the directors, officers and employees of professional advisors, auditors, consultants and bankers including spouses. This wide ambit of the definition is in consonance with the policy of SEBl to check high tech insider trading through intermediaries/ third party. “Unpublished Price Sensitive Information (UPSI)” is a mainstay of Indian insider trading law. The term UPSI would include any information which is not generally available and on coming in public domain can materially impact the price of securities. Examples in the regulations include financial information, dividends, changes to share capital structure, mergers and acquisitions, delisting’s and key management changes.11
Indian courts have played a critical role in the interpretation of these statutory definitions. In DSQ Holdings Ltd. v. SEBI, SAT held that the liability for insider trading is only based on holding and use of price-sensitive information and if an individual were to be a relative of any director or who is shown as person having association with the company in annual report, it would not lead to presumption of being liable for insider trading. In Rakesh Agrawal v. SEBI (2003) where SAT dealt with the issue of intent and motive under insider trading regulations thereby emphasizing on the conflict between strict provision on statutes and commercial exigencies. Subsequently, in the matter of SEBI v. Shri Kanaiyalal Baldevbhai Patel (2017), SAT held that holding of UPSI at the time of trading gives rise to a rebuttable presumption under the 2015 Regulations that insider trading has taken place. SEBI v. Abhijit Rajan (2019) has also reiterated the prohibitory and preventive scheme of Indian insider trading regime.12
UNITED STATES: STATUTORY AND JUDICIAL REGULATION
In the US however, there is no statutory definition of insider trading. It is based on the Securities Exchange Act, 1934 and specifically Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 which generally prohibits fraudulent or manipulative practices for transactions in securities. Notably, Rule 10b-5 does not explicitly reference insider trading. In the United States, by contrast, there is no statute against insider trading, and the definition of that offense has developed through case law to consist of a type of securities fraud involving deception or violation of duty. In SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. (1968), the court took a broad view, deciding that individuals who had material non-public information either needed to reveal it or refrain from trading. This decision established the groundwork for current insider trading law. But this approach was subsequently circumscribed by the Supreme Court in Chiarella v. United States (1980), which clarified that discovery of non-public information alone is not enough, and liability attaches only if there is a breach of a duty or fiduciary relationship.13
The tipper-tippee liability model was first articulated in Dirks v. SEC (1983) and based on the fiduciary duty theory. The court held that the tippee’s duty is based on whether the insider breached a fiduciary duty by disclosing inside information for personal benefit and if there would be evidence showing that the tippee knew or should have known of the breach. The case continues to be a leading precedent in US insider trading laws.14 In United States v. O’Hagan (1997) a misappropriation theory was recognized, broadening the cap on damages. According to the Supreme Court, “a person who trades on material nonpublic information about a corporation that has been misappropriated in violation of a duty to the source of the information is guilty not only of defrauding a corporation’s owners, but also of deceiving its source.”15
INDIAN JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS
Under the Indian law, judicial interpretation has been instrumental in shaping the application of insider trading norms, particularly through pronouncements of SAT and the Supreme Court. In the early cases, the emphasis was on fiduciary duties and on information that is price sensitive. In Hindustan Lever Ltd vs SEBI (1998), the SAT analyzed whether the information regarding merger in possession of Hindustan Lever constituted UPBSI when the trading took place. The Tribunal also stressed that both the timing of information and its expected effect on market price were crucial considerations in deciding insider trading liability. The case emphasized that insider trading is contextual and needs to be evaluated taking into account market perception and disclosure norms rather than with a fixed mindset.16
The same question was answered in the negative by the SAT in Cabot International Capital Corporation v. SEBI (2004), which involved a question as to whether foreign institutional investors and their sub-accounts/acquirers had to be termed insiders’. The Tribunal took a conservative view that the mere access to information or affiliation with market intermediaries is not enough, unless it can be proved that such information is unpublished and price advantaged and was actually utilized for trading. This case demonstrated the courts’ reluctance to apportion culpability without clear evidence of abuse. The Supreme Court’s decision in SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund (2006) marked a significant shift in Indian insider trading rules. The Court emphasized that menses is not a necessary condition for civil liability under SEBI’s laws, including insider trading. The Court emphasized that regulatory enactments aim to protect public interest and market integrity, and so function with strict standards. This verdict strengthened SEBI’s enforcement capabilities and marked a change from menses defenses in insider trading cases.17 Indian jurisprudence prioritizes market integrity above subjective intent when interpreting insider trading regulation, emphasizing prevention and compliance.
Nature and Characteristics of Insider Trading
Insider trading is well understood in the form of securities fraud that ensues from the misuse of non-public information. Its essence can hardly be reduced to a simple act of buying and selling securities; it is clear instead that short selling rips the foundations of transparency, fairness and confidence in capital markets.
Confidentiality-Based Trading
Central to insider trading is the notion of trading on confidential information, that is, buying or selling securities based upon information not accessible to the investing public. A fiduciary, professional or other statement of fact previously made by a director of the corporation concerning the performance of his duties as a director is admissible in a contested proceeding. Information of Corporate Nature requires to be provided to the directors, Key Managerial Personnel/Edit Staff/Auditor/legal Advisors/Consultants etc. on a strict confidential basis.18
The illegality of insider trading arises, not from the mere act of trading, but rather for having breached an obligation to keep material information confidential.
• A breach of market confidence and trust.
Fundamentally, it is a breach of trust. Corporate executives owe fiduciary obligations of loyalty and secrecy to the company and shareholders. Insiders who use non-public knowledge for personal advantage undermine confidence. Violations of trade laws have far-reaching consequences. Insider trading abuse can harm market trust and raise doubts about fairness and honesty. Securities regulation is to maintain investor trust, as acknowledged by courts and regulators for years. In SEBI vs. Cabot International Capital Corporation (India), the Securities Appellate Tribunal emphasized the need for a clear link between accessing inside knowledge and trading securities. The Tribunal emphasized the need of considering trust, access, and abuse of knowledge when analyzing insider trading, notwithstanding its cautious stance. The verdict demonstrates the courts’ focus on investor protection and equity in enforcement.19
Civil vs criminal liability
Insider trading can lead to both criminal and civil liability. Civil sanctions include fines, profit disgorgement, and market prohibitions, similar to those in India and the United States. In severe cases, criminal action can also be taken which could result in jail time and hefty fines. Enforcement of insider trading in India is by and large civil (and to some extent, administrative) proceedings under the SEBI regulations; however, criminal liability can arise in serious cases such as a contravention of the SEBI Act. Civil enforcement is mainly designed to help prevent wrongdoing and market discipline, rather than purely penalize.20
In the US, insider trading may result in both a civil enforcement action by SEC as well as a criminal violation prosecuted by DOJ. In the case of criminal procedures, a driver can engage in intentional non-compliance; commit a series of violations or their crime be massive and society-threatening.
CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES IN DEFINING “INSIDER” AND “UNPUBLISHED PRICE SENSITIVE INFORMATION (UPSI)”
These definitions are fluid, contextual and are shaped by market structures, information flows and changing business behavior. Jurisprudence in both India and America show that definitional vagueness is bound to occur as the courts are repeatedly forced to settled ‘borderline’ cases. In this part, the main theoretical problems relevant to the enlarging circle of insiders, liability of those who are “further downstream” and uncertain lines concerning UPSI are analyzed through an extensive reference to landmark cases.21 Historically, the label “insider” was applied to several categories of corporate insiders — directors, officers and employees — who were directly engaged in management activities. Yet, contemporary capital markets are populated by a large variety of participants who can be exposed to privileged information such as auditors, lawyers, consultants, bankers rating agencies and even willing or unwilling facilitators like regulators or governments. This growth has presented substantial conceptual hurdles in defining the boundaries of insider status.22
In India, the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations 2015 expands what constitutes an insider. The term “insider” denotes any person who has come in the possession of or has access to the UPSI, rather than just being ‘connected persons. While this approach provides an enforcement certification, it could present concerns of over-inclusion. Critics worry that the “possession of information” approach would expand liability beyond corporate borders because it is based on holding people liable regardless of their knowledge, intent to break the law or an obligation to stop conduct.23
The recent case of SEBI v. Deep Industries Ltd. illustrates the difficulty with evidence of indirect knowledge and circumstantial evidence in making a determination on potential insiders who may have been designated. The case brought to the fore the difficulty of proving that an insider had intimate contact with a company. Regulators are challenged in making a connection between access to UPSI and trading as was the case here, which underscores that more is necessary than general definitions.
In the case of SEBI v Pankaj Balabhai Patel, it was contested whether an individual who does not have a status as officer or any designations in a company, however has access to Unpublished Price Sensitive Information and if done by his connections he satisfies rule 3 can he still be regarded as an insider.
This narrow application was modified to some extent in United States v. Martoma (2018), by which the court ruled that a personal benefit could be inferred if the disclosure is “exchange for conferral of a pecuniary value,” or if it’s made with the aim to bestow the recipient with an advantage. Martoma is a reflection of the judiciary’s view that overly stringent tests would create opportunities for sophisticated actors in the market to shield themselves from liability by creating informational insulation between themselves and the primary insider.24
The Indian law does not evoke the nomenclature of tipper–tippee liability but encompasses like situations within the possession-sensitive rule. This can enable SEBI to go after persons sitting as far away as possible who may be the recipients of UPSI and yet, this creates evidentiary issues. Proving that a remote tippee had actual knowledge or constructive notice of what the information was, and that it continued to be material nonpublic is typically difficult. The less defined doctrinal structure that exists in comparison to Dirks, Newman, or Martoma gives regulators and judges more leeway.25 The conceptual issues related to the definition of UP in other words are complicated. While the rules contain a list of illustrative categories (e.g., financial performance, mergers, acquisitions or disposals of businesses), their application within practice is rarely straightforward.
In the US, however, judge the law’s response to legal concepts has focused more on limiting criteria of judge-made law such as fiduciary duty; personal gain and knowledge. This has certain theological benefits, but can also cause division and confusion. The Indian regulatory system is more explicit, but opens up as much or even more space for interpretation and adjudication. In order to maintain legal certainty and safeguard innocent dissemination of the signals that are the ordinary consequence of open markets, we should distinguish narrowly between insider trading and ‘insider knowledge’ as a commercial term.26
There are no clear definitions of “insider” and “UPSI”, because the structure of complex financial markets makes it hard to define. These trends, the lack of effective available doctrinal tools with respect to remote tippees and gray areas involving materiality and publication, call for prudential doctrinal moderation. Indian and US courts are concerned with striking a balance between the pragmatic outlook, justice, certainty and economic viability. Conceptual matters are important both to delineate enforcers’ powers and to mold the insider trading laws on the ground.
CONCLUSION
This paper is a fulsome conceptual, legal and theoretical discussion of insider trading, anchored in its larger context of market integrity, fairness and investor protection. The classical definition of insider trading is the exploitation of undisclosed information when trading in securities, and it contravenes fundamental principles of fairness and transparency on which modern financial markets are based. The paper underscores that it is not information, but the manner in which it is acquired and used, that makes insider trading illegal–the use of better analysis or superior skill or technique; even the possession or proper use of largely public information (as long as no confidences are betrayed); by contrast: If a fiduciary’s fraud in misleading a trust beneficiary to give up a stock for less than its value constituted unfairness, then insider trading would automatically be unlawful. Insider trading from an economic point of view distorts the symmetrical information and relates to unfair informational advantages, with market inefficiencies in consequence and loss of investor trust. By law, the paper emphasizes that insider trading is not just about the possession of information but also its abusive usage — a distinction key for enforcement agencies. Insider trading regulations in India and United States India Regulator is SEB, while in United States the regulator for this purpose is SEC Insider trading is perceived as very serious market abuse by regulators of insider trading serving civil or administrative or even criminal sanctions.
*****
Footnotes
1. Stephen M. Bainbridge, Securities Law: Insider Trading 1–6
2. United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 652–659 (1997
3. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, Preamble & Regs. 3–6
4. Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646, 659–667 (1983)
5. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976)
6. Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 228–230 (1980)
7. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, Preamble; Reg. 2(1)(n), Reg. 3 & Reg. 4
8. Rakesh Agrawal v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2004) 49 SCL 351 (SAT)
9. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 .
10. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992, Reg. 2(e) & Reg. 3
11. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, Reg. 2(1)(n)
12. DSQ Holdings Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2002) 40 SCL 262 (SAT)
13. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 848–852 (2d Cir. 1968)
14. Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646, 659–667 (1983)
15. United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 652–659 (1997)
16. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (1998) 18 SCL 311 (SAT)
17. Cabot International Capital Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2004) 51 SCL 307 (SAT)
18. Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646, 654–660 (1983)
19. Cabot International Capital Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (2004) 51 SCL 307 (SAT)
20. Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, ss. 11, 11B, 15A–15HB & s. 24
21. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 848–852 (2d Cir. 1968)
22. Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646, 654–660 (1983)
23. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, Reg. 2(1)(g), Reg. 2(1)(n) & Reg. 4
24. United States v. Martoma, 894 F.3d 64, 74–79 (2d Cir. 2018)
25. SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015, Reg. 2(1)(g), Reg. 2(1)(n) & Reg. 4
26. Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646, 654–667 (1983)