The personal benefit element of the tipping violation established in Dirks v. SEC has been misunderstood. Courts, the SEC, and criminal prosecutors have broadly construed it to create liability for insiders who received remote, specula-tive, immaterial, or intangible returns after disclosing confidential company in-formation. Several situations, such as an insider’s gift of confidential information to a relative or friend or an intention to benefit the recipient of the information, do not require the insider to receive anything at all.

中文翻译：

---

解释德克

在 Dirks v. SEC 中确立的小费违规的个人利益要素被误解了。法院、美国证券交易委员会和刑事检察官广泛地将其解释为对在披露公司机密信息后获得远程、投机、非物质或无形回报的内部人员承担责任。在一些情况下，例如内部人向亲戚或朋友赠送机密信息或意图使信息接收者受益，则完全不需要内部人接受任何东西。