SEC’s authority to interpret the securities laws comes under fire in criminal enforcement

Abstract

Purpose

To examine a statement issued by Justice Antonin Scalia on November 10, 2014, concurrently with the Supreme Court ' s denial of certiorari in a criminal insider trading case, which raises profound questions about how the courts interpret the federal securities laws and the degree of deference they give to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the context of criminal enforcement.

Design/methodology/approach

The article discusses the points raised in the justice ' s statement and their potential implications for future securities enforcement cases.

Findings

The statement suggests that the traditional deference courts accord the SEC under the landmark decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (1984) may be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent with the rule of lenity, which requires that ambiguous criminal laws be interpreted in a defendant ' s favor.

Originality/value

Expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

Citation

Boryshansky, J., Asaro, M.A., Benjamin, J. and Connolly, C.F. (2015), "SEC’s authority to interpret the securities laws comes under fire in criminal enforcement", Journal of Investment Compliance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 41-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOIC-04-2015-0027