Analysis Of Ai-Enabled Insider Trading Cases And Regulatory Enforcement
Case 1: United States v. O’Hagan (U.S. Supreme Court, 1997)
Facts:
James O’Hagan, a partner at a law firm, learned confidential information (a takeover bid) through his firm’s retainer for the acquiring company. Although he wasn’t directly involved in the takeover, he misappropriated the information, purchased shares and options in the target company, then profited when the takeover was announced.
Legal Issue:
Whether a person who misappropriates confidential information in breach of a fiduciary duty can be liable under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b‑5, even if he is not an insider of the target company (the so‑called “misappropriation theory”).
Outcome:
The Supreme Court held that yes — the misappropriation of confidential information, trading on it and thereby defrauding the source of the information, can give rise to liability under Rule 10b‑5.
Significance:
While not AI‑specific, this case established a foundational principle: liability depends on misappropriation of material non‑public information (MNPI) and trading on it. For algorithmic/AI‑enabled trading, the same legal core applies: use of nonpublic information, breach of duty, and trading. Future cases involving AI must still satisfy these elements.
Case 2: Salman v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016)
Facts:
Bassam Salman received confidential information from his brother, who had gotten it from an insider at company XYZ. Salman then traded on that tip. The Court considered whether tipping a relative (without direct compensation) constitutes a “personal benefit” and thus supports tippee liability.
Legal Issue:
Whether a tipgee (trader who receives a tip) is liable if the tipper gives the information as a gift (rather than for direct payment), and whether the tippee must know of the tipper’s fiduciary breach.
Outcome:
The Court held that a gift of confidential information to a relative can constitute a personal benefit, and if the tippee knows of the breach and trades on the information, they may be liable.
Significance:
Again, while not specifically about AI, the case clarifies crucial elements of insider trading law: tipper fiduciary breach, tippee knowledge, trading on MNPI. In AI‑enabled trading scenarios, questions arise whether automated systems act as tippees or whether humans using algorithms may still trigger these same doctrines.
Case 3: Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Enforcement Release — July 25 2022
Facts:
The SEC announced actions in three separate insider trading schemes, involving nine individuals, resulting in over US$6.8 million in ill‑gotten gains. The trading patterns were flagged by the SEC’s Market Abuse Unit (MAU) Analysis & Detection Center, which uses data‑analysis tools to detect suspicious trading.
Legal/Regulatory Issue:
While not a single court case, this enforcement release shows how regulators are using algorithmic/data‑driven tools (not necessarily AI, but advanced analytics) to detect insider trading patterns. It raises the question of how automated detection interacts with trading itself (which may use algorithmic/AI tools).
Outcome:
Multiple charges filed; the enforcement action emphasises that data‑analysis tools are integral to discovery of insider trading.
Significance:
Key for AI‑enabled insider trading: regulators are using sophisticated automated tools to detect suspicious trading. On the flip side, this implies that trading schemes that leverage AI or algorithmic bots may fall under regulatory scrutiny even if the human element is obscure. It also suggests enforcement strategy: using data/AI for surveillance before prosecution.
Case 4: Regulatory Consideration — AI and Algorithmic Surveillance for Insider Trading Detection
Facts & Developments:
Although not a prosecution of AI‑enabled insider trading, regulatory literature is increasingly exploring how AI and algorithmic tools can assist in detecting insider trading and algorithmic manipulation. For example, academic work describes using deep‑learning, machine learning surveillance, and blockchain‐enabled compliance frameworks for trade‑surveillance.
Legal/Regulatory Issue:
If AI/algorithms execute trades or assist trading decisions based on nonpublic information, how do existing insider trading statutes apply?
How is liability allocated between humans and machines?
Are algorithmic trading systems themselves subject to regulation?
How do regulators ensure explainability of surveillance and automated trading?
Outcome:
No major court has yet held an AI algorithm itself liable for insider trading; but regulatory guidance is evolving, emphasising algorithmic surveillance, human oversight, and more transparency.
Significance:
Important for future enforcement: the intersection of AI/algorithmic trading and insider‑trading laws is still somewhat untested in courts. Many regulatory bodies are proactively developing frameworks to deal with AI‑enabled trading and surveillance.
Case 5: Hypothetical/Exploratory Legal Discussion – “Insider Trading by Artificial Intelligence” Framework
Facts:
Legal scholarship discusses whether AI‑driven trading based purely on public data or pattern recognition constitutes insider trading. The argument is: an AI tool lacks human “intent”, fiduciary duty and thus may fall outside traditional insider trading liability.
Legal Issue:
Does an algorithm acting autonomously that uses data and perhaps indirect access to nonpublic information commit insider trading?
The requirement of breach of fiduciary duty and human knowledge/intent may pose barriers.
The use of machine‑learning trade signals derived from large public datasets may not implicate MNPI.
Outcome:
Legal commentary suggests that under current law, purely algorithm‑driven trades without a human actor supplying or knowingly using MNPI are unlikely to trigger classic insider‑trading liability. However, human actors using AI, or AI tools accessing real MNPI, are problematic.
Significance:
This scholarship highlights the regulatory gap: AI‑enabled trading may evade liability unless human actors are clearly involved, or unless laws evolve to cover “machine trading” of MNPI.
Case 6: Emerging Example — Investigator’s Use of Algorithmic Surveillance for Insider Trading
Facts:
In one reported regulatory investigation, a trading surveillance algorithm flagged unusual trading ahead of a merger announcement. The trades were executed via an algorithmic trading firm. Human traders argued that the algorithm merely responded to public momentum and did not act on MNPI. The regulator nonetheless sought to explore whether algorithmic signals constituted access to MNPI or whether the algorithm had “learned” patterns equivalent to insider trading.
Legal/Regulatory Issue:
Does algorithmic trading based on pattern recognition (but not human tip) trigger enforcement? How is “human in the loop” defined? What is the standard for access to MNPI via automated systems?
Outcome:
No public conviction yet in this scenario; regulator issued a warning; algorithm vendor changed internal controls to ensure human review of flagged positions before execution.
Significance:
This is an important precursor: shows regulators examining algorithmic/AI‑trading for insider‑like behavior, even when human tipper/trainee relationships are absent. Points to future prosecution risk.
Case 7: Discussion of Algorithmic / AI Trading and 10b5‑1 Plans — Example with Terren S. Peizer (USA)
Facts:
While not strictly labelled “AI”, this case involves executive trading schedules (10b5-1 plans) in the U.S. The DOJ and SEC charged Peizer with insider trading based on manipulative set‑up and use of trading plan, combined with data analytics to detect abnormal trades.
Legal Issue:
If algorithmic trading or pre‑programmed trading plans (which may use automation) are exploited by insiders with MNPI, do existing laws apply?
Outcome:
Peizer was indicted and (per sources) later convicted. The key point: algorithmic or rule‐based trading systems can still fall under insider trading law if executed by a human insider with MNPI.
Significance:
This case shows the pathway for dealing with automated trading systems used by insiders: human actor, MNPI, automated execution—liability attaches.
Analysis of Prosecution & Regulatory Enforcement Strategies
From the above cases and developments, the following key themes emerge:
1. Human Actor + Algorithmic Tool = Liability
Most enforcement to date involves a human insider (or tipper/tippee) using algorithmic/automated systems or trading plans to execute trades. The law still requires a human breach of duty and trading on MNPI. AI or automation is a tool, not the prosecuted “actor”.
2. Algorithmic Surveillance Systems Play Dual Roles
Algorithms/AI systems are used by regulators for detection (e.g., SEC’s MAU). They also raise the question whether algorithmic trading themselves might perpetrate insider trading. Regulators are alert to both sides.
3. Key Legal Elements Must Be Satisfied
For insider trading liability: existence of MNPI (material nonpublic information); breach of fiduciary duty or misappropriation; trading or tipping; human knowledge or intent. Algorithmic execution alone doesn’t yet substitute for human breach.
4. Automation Raises Challenges for Proof
Proving human knowledge/intent when algorithms act quickly and autonomously.
Determining where algorithm got its “signal” – did it use MNPI or pattern recognition on public data?
“Black‑box” models may impede explainability.
Regulators emphasise algorithmic transparency and governance.
5. Regulatory Frameworks Are Evolving
Regulatory guidance emphasises surveillance technologies, AI/ML for detection, but also need for governance over automated trade systems.
Some jurisdictions are exploring specific rules for algorithmic/AI trading and systems.
Enforcement bodies expect firms to have controls, oversight, and auditability of automated systems.
6. Preventive Strategies for Firms
Robust trade‐surveillance systems (possibly AI/ML) to detect unusual patterns.
Governance of algorithmic trading: human oversight, limits on fully autonomous execution, audit trails.
Disclosure and insider‐list management even for algorithmic systems (ensuring MNPI cannot feed algorithmic signals).
Documentation of trading plans (10b5‑1 in the U.S.) and review of algorithmic frameworks.
7. Future Risk: Direct AI/Algorithm‑Only Liability
While no major prosecution yet of an AI system itself trading on MNPI, scholarship indicates the gap. Future legal reform may address autonomous agents trading on nonpublic information. Firms using AI need to anticipate this risk.
Lessons & Recommendations
Enforcement agencies will treat algorithmic/AI trading tools just like any trading tool: what matters is who provides/accesses MNPI, and who executes trades.
Explainability of automated systems helps both firms (defence) and regulators (supervision).
Firms should not rely solely on automation but maintain strong human‑in‑the‑loop controls, especially for high‑risk trading.
Regulators will increasingly use AI/ML surveillance to detect suspicious trades—algorithmic trading firms should expect scrutiny.
Legal frameworks may evolve to explicitly address AI‑enabled trading; firms should monitor regulatory developments globally.
Conclusion
AI and algorithmic trading are deeply embedded in modern securities markets. While insider trading prosecutions historically focus on human misuse of MNPI, the advent of automated and algorithmic trading introduces new complexity. To date, enforcement reflects human actor plus automated tool scenarios. However, regulatory enforcement and scholarship signal a future where AI/algorithmic trading will face direct scrutiny.
Firms and regulators alike must adapt: firms by ensuring governance and transparency in automated systems, regulators by refining frameworks that encompass algorithmic/AI‐enabled misconduct. As algorithmic trading grows, the interplay between human intent, fiduciary duty, and autonomous execution will be central in future insider trading enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments