Insider Trading and Law Enforcement in the Capital Market
Illegal stock trading, or insider trading, has become a significant issue in the capital markets, both in Indonesia and the United States. This research aims to compare law enforcement related to insider trading between the two countries. This research uses a normative method with legislative and conceptual approaches. Data was collected through analysis of laws and regulations and case studies related to insider trading practices. The findings show that the regulations in the UUPM in Indonesia still use the fiduciary duty theory, which limits the scope of actions that can be sanctioned. In contrast, in the United States, the application of the fiduciary duty theory and misappropriation theory provides stronger legal protection and stricter sanctions against insider trading offenses. Although both countries have regulations prohibiting insider trading, the enforcement mechanism in the US is more comprehensive than in Indonesia. In the US, there are more legal precedents that clarify limits and sanctions, while in Indonesia, there is still a lack of implementation and understanding of insider trading. Enforcement of insider trading laws in the US is more effective than in Indonesia. The UUPM in Indonesia needs to be revised to integrate the misappropriation theory and strengthen sanctions against insider trading violations, in order to provide better protection to investors.
Agrawal, A., & Cooper, T. (2015). Insider trading before accounting scandals. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 169–190.
Ahern, K. R. (2017). Information networks: Evidence from illegal insider trading tips. Journal of Financial Economics, 125(1), 26–47.
Anand, A., Choi, S. J., Pritchard, A. C., & Puri, P. (2019). An empirical comparison of insider trading enforcement in Canada and the United States. International Review of Law and Economics, 57, 49–59.
Barth, M. E., Cahan, S. F., Chen, L., & Venter, E. R. (2017). The economic consequences associated with integrated report quality: Capital market and real effects. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 62, 43–64.
Das, S., Kalimipalli, M., & Nayak, S. (2014). Did CDS trading improve the market for corporate bonds? Journal of Financial Economics, 111(2), 495–525.
Fam, M. L., Konovessis, D., Ong, L. S., & Tan, H. K. (2018). A review of offshore decommissioning regulations in five countries–Strengths and weaknesses. Ocean Engineering, 160, 244–263.
Feng, Y., Duives, D., Daamen, W., & Hoogendoorn, S. (2021). Data collection methods for studying pedestrian behaviour: A systematic review. Building and Environment, 187, 107329.
Fragkos, P., van Soest, H. L., Schaeffer, R., Reedman, L., Köberle, A. C., Macaluso, N., Evangelopoulou, S., De Vita, A., Sha, F., & Qimin, C. (2021). Energy system transitions and low-carbon pathways in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, EU-28, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States. Energy, 216, 119385.
Habib, A., Muhammadi, A. H., & Jiang, H. (2017). Political connections, related party transactions, and auditor choice: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 13(1), 1–19.
Haidar, F. (2015). Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Investor Terhadap Praktik Kejahatan Insider Trading Pada Pasar Modal di Indonesia. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 3(1), 95490.
Irawati, I. (n.d.). Supervisory Role of The Financial Services Authority in Utilizing Equity Crowdfunding in Indonesia. LAW REFORM, 16(1), 32–44.
James, B. J., & Joseph, C. (2015). Corporate governance mechanisms and bank performance: Resource-based view. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 117–123.
Kaveh, A., & Dadras, A. (2017). A novel meta-heuristic optimization algorithm: thermal exchange optimization. Advances in Engineering Software, 110, 69–84.
Kim, I., Miller, S., Wan, H., & Wang, B. (2016). Drivers behind the monitoring effectiveness of global institutional investors: Evidence from earnings management. Journal of Corporate Finance, 40, 24–46.
Masyitoh, A. (2021). Role Of Judicial Activism In Environmentaldispute Resolution Before The State Administrative Court. Prophetic Law Review, 3(1), 1–15.
Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56.
Silva, R., Berta, A., Larsen, M., Macfadden, W., Feller, C., Monés, J., & Group, T. S. (2018). Treat-and-extend versus monthly regimen in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: results with ranibizumab from the TREND study. Ophthalmology, 125(1), 57–65.
Tseng, S.-M. (2014). The impact of knowledge management capabilities and supplier relationship management on corporate performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 154, 39–47.
Ximeng, L., & Zhiwen, L. (2023). Efficacy of judicial independence in explaining financial markets in emerging markets. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23(5), 1132–1140.
Copyright (c) 2024 Tara Dewi Niandita
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-SA). that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
