Which standard of proof is applied in cases of insider dealing?

In cases of insider dealing, the appropriate standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This standard is typically used in criminal cases where the prosecution must establish that there is no reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Insider dealing can constitute a criminal offense under securities laws, and as such, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant's guilt to this heightened standard. This rigorous requirement ensures that there is a strong consensus regarding the behavior in question, reflecting the serious implications of a criminal conviction, including penalties and reputational damage.

In contrast, other standards of proof, such as "preponderance of evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence," are more commonly applied in civil matters. For example, the "preponderance of evidence" standard, meaning that something is more likely true than not, is typically used in civil cases where a lower level of certainty is sufficient to determine guilt or liability. "Clear and convincing evidence," while a bit higher than preponderance, is still not as stringent as "beyond a reasonable doubt" and is often used in cases involving significant civil penalties or in some family law matters. The "balance of probabilities" essentially means that one side’s case is more likely true than the other’s and