侃股：内幕交易没有任何借口

Core Viewpoint - The recent penalty for insider trading highlights the strict stance of regulatory authorities against such practices, emphasizing that any involvement in insider trading, regardless of intent, will lead to severe consequences [1][2]. Group 1: Insider Trading Penalty Case - A recent case involved an individual, Li, who was penalized for insider trading after using confidential information overheard in the office to trade shares of Qitian Technology, resulting in a profit of 260,000 yuan from a 300,000 yuan investment [1]. - The regulatory body asserts that insider trading poses significant risks to market integrity and investor interests, necessitating strict penalties to uphold market fairness [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Enforcement - The law defines insider trading based on objective criteria, where knowledge of insider information and subsequent trading constitutes a violation, regardless of the individual's intent [2]. - The regulatory framework has increased the costs associated with insider trading violations, yet some individuals still take risks due to the potential rewards [2]. Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - Continuous enhancement of monitoring systems using big data to detect abnormal trading patterns and information dissemination is essential for identifying hidden operations [2]. - Establishing a comprehensive accountability chain is crucial, which includes not only punishing direct traders but also holding accountable those who leak information or facilitate trades [2]. - Implementing civil compensation mechanisms for affected investors through collective lawsuits can ensure that violators face significant penalties while victims receive appropriate compensation [2]. Group 4: Broader Responsibilities - Ordinary investors should remain vigilant against the allure of insider information and refrain from engaging in gray market transactions [3]. - Listed companies must enforce strict information confidentiality protocols to prevent internal misconduct [3]. - Intermediary institutions are urged to maintain independence and professionalism to avoid becoming complicit in the leakage of insider information [3].