So we'll probably manage (hide) our social networks well, and make some good offline-only friends. I do know SEC can put burden of proof to the person they suspect, but that can be prepared beforehand.

> we'll probably manage (hide) our social networks well, and make some good offline-only friends

Or don't insider trade. In the financial crime universe, insider trading is on the stupid end of the spectrum. It's tough to do right, hard to scale and easy to get caught.

Or just get elected to Congress. Then it's open season.

Despite widespread belief to the contrary, members of Congress are not allowed to trade on information for which they are bound by either a confidentiality agreement or a fiduciary duty.

Information asymmetry does not constitute insider trading. Trading on information which you have that the broader public does not have is also not insider trading. Trading on exclusive information which you learned through professional exposure, and which does not come with confidentiality or fiduciary requirements, is not insider trading.

> members of Congress are not allowed to trade on information for which they are bound by either a confidentiality agreement or a fiduciary duty

Prior to 2012, Congress was actually explicitly permitted to insider trade. That was fixed by the STOCK Act [1]. It doesn't make it easy to pull up records, but it does close the loophole.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/17749...

Yes, but I'm talking about the myth that gets perpetuated post-2012.

That's not really what congresspeople do. They have financial interests and then write and pass laws to make those interests more valuable. It's not insider trading, but its some next-level shit. And the best part is its out and in the open. We all see it happening right in front of us.

What you're describing is not the grey area I'm talking about that people frequently confuse with illegal insider trading. I'm referring to the way that people believe Congress is explicitly allowed to get away with things ordinary people are not. Post-2012, they are not, but their work still exposes them to information they can legally use depending on the circumstances. That does not constitute insider trading, even for a relatively overzealous SEC.

Yeah, try that and see how it goes. :)

Courts aren't stupid, and can generally see through collusion attempts, and would probably have a fairly easy time showing culpable intent if you try to trade through friends and/or family members.

Sure, but how do they get that money back to you? How do you spend it? Theft is a lot simpler if you don't spend your ill-gotten gains.

E.g. Sergei Roldugin (although in a country without functioning anti-corruption institutions)