Where did he mention tax avoidance? My interpretation of the parent is he’s saying many violations of securities laws are otherwise harmless. Nobody needs to be defrauded for a violation to occur. All parties on both sides of an investment could willingly consent to take part, and everyone involved could be happy, yet the SEC or CFTC could still punish everyone.

I’m not arguing in favor of either side with this comment, just looking to clear up some apparent confusion on what the parent comment stated.

We could certainly have a discussion about taxation and my views on it, but I'd rather discuss a more clear cut subject.

That subject is someone being prosecuted under criminal law for offering a security to another consenting adult without having met the mandated requirement of having that security approved by the ordained regulatory agency.

Edit: responding to below:

>>why you might also believe that securities frauds are victimless.

It's not "securities fraud" though. No fraud need happen for someone to be prosecuted under criminal law for offering a security to the public.

The fact that you label all securities offerings without government approval "fraud" supports my earlier point that your position is "based on sweeping and prejudicial generalizations that they're all scams".

If you believe tax voidance is a victimless crime, it provides insight to me as to why you might also believe that securities frauds are victimless.

Its not a trick question.