Selected Aspects of the Regulation of Insider Trading and Market Manipulation in the European Union and South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasingly global market has given rise to increased interaction and interdependence among national regulators as well as investors in different jurisdictions. However, this has brought several regulatory problems to the enforcement authorities particularly with regard to the detection, investigation and prosecution of cross-border market abuse activities in many jurisdictions, such as the European Union and South Africa. Consequently, the European Union became the first body to establish multinational market abuse laws in order to enhance the detection and combating of cross-border market abuse practices. The European Union Insider Dealing Directive was subsequently adopted in 1989 and was the first law that harmonised the insider trading ban among the European Union member states. Thereafter, the European Union Directive on Insider Dealing and Market Manipulation was adopted in a bid to increase the combating of all the forms of market abuse in the European Union’s securities and financial markets. Similar anti-market abuse regulatory efforts were also made in South Africa. In light of this, selected regulatory aspects of market abuse in the European Union and South Africa will be briefly and comparatively discussed in tandem. Thereafter, some concluding remarks will be provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".