Analysis Of Criminal Liability In Ai-Assisted Insider Trading, Embezzlement, And Market Manipulation
1. Insider Trading and AI
Criminal Liability: Insider trading occurs when someone trades securities based on material, non-public information. When AI is used, the liability could extend to:
The AI developers (if they designed it to exploit insider info).
Users (traders) who knowingly use AI for unfair advantage.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: U.S. v. Raj Rajaratnam (2011)
Facts: Rajaratnam, a hedge fund manager, used insider tips to trade stocks. He didn’t use AI, but the principles are similar: if AI had sifted through emails or financial data to detect patterns from insider info, liability would extend to the trader.
Holding: Convicted for securities fraud and conspiracy.
Analysis: Shows that using technology to exploit non-public information, even indirectly, constitutes criminal liability.
Case 2: SEC v. Dorozhko (2008)
Facts: Dorozhko hacked into an online trading system and traded on confidential info.
Holding: He was held liable for securities fraud.
Analysis: If an AI is programmed to access non-public trading information, the user could be liable under similar logic.
AI Implication: Courts could extend liability to AI systems if they are used deliberately to exploit confidential information. Developers might be liable if they designed AI knowing it would be used for illegal trades.
2. Embezzlement and AI
Criminal Liability: Embezzlement involves misappropriating funds entrusted to someone. AI can facilitate embezzlement by:
Automating unauthorized transfers.
Creating fraudulent reports to conceal theft.
Case Law Examples
Case 3: U.S. v. Blaszczak (2015)
Facts: Blaszczak was convicted for wire fraud, involving fake invoices and misappropriation of funds.
Holding: Guilty under fraud statutes.
Analysis: If AI generates fake invoices or automates fraudulent transfers, liability could extend to the operator and possibly the AI developer if it was designed for deception.
Case 4: State v. Smith (2009)
Facts: An employee diverted funds from a company using company accounts.
Holding: Convicted of embezzlement.
Analysis: Use of AI to make systematic transfers does not absolve criminal intent—the human operator’s knowledge and intent remain crucial.
AI Implication: Criminal liability requires mens rea—the intention to misappropriate. If AI acts autonomously, courts may examine whether the operator intended the misappropriation.
3. Market Manipulation and AI
Criminal Liability: Market manipulation includes creating false trading signals, “pump-and-dump” schemes, or artificially inflating stock prices. AI can be used to:
Generate fake trading patterns.
Execute high-frequency manipulative trades.
Case Law Examples
Case 5: SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. (Securities Fraud Principles)
Facts: Howey involved misleading investors in unregistered securities.
Holding: Established that fraudulent schemes in securities sales violate law.
Analysis: Using AI to mislead the market mirrors this, as courts focus on intent to deceive and impact on market integrity.
Case 6: U.S. v. Coscia (2015) – High-Frequency Trading Manipulation
Facts: Coscia used high-frequency trading to manipulate market prices by placing and canceling orders rapidly.
Holding: Convicted of commodities fraud and wire fraud.
Analysis: If AI executes similar strategies, the operator is liable. The use of AI does not shield from criminal responsibility.
Key Legal Principles in AI-Assisted Financial Crimes
Mens Rea (Intent): AI cannot form intent; criminal liability usually falls on humans operating or programming AI.
Actus Reus (Action): Using AI to execute trades, transfer funds, or manipulate markets counts as a criminal act if linked to human intent.
Conspiracy/Accessory Liability: Developers who knowingly design AI for illegal purposes could be charged as accessories.
Regulatory Guidance: Courts are beginning to consider how automated trading or AI assistance affects the standard for securities fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement.
Summary Table:
Crime AI Role Key Case Example Liability Principle Insider Trading AI analyzes non-public info Rajaratnam (2011) Human intent + use of AI for illegal gain Embezzlement AI automates fraudulent transfers Blaszczak (2015) Operator’s knowledge and intent crucial Market Manipulation AI generates fake trading signals Coscia (2015) Human liable for algorithmic manipulative trading
RELATED Blog
0 comments