Simon English: Insider traders are still unlikely to be caught

Outlook: On the subject of insider dealing, my trader friend Rob sticks to a scrupulously strict regime. He only does it when he has actual inside information, which isn't very often. The rest of the time, he's as good as gold.

By his account, he's had a few hairy moments with the regulators over the years, a few occasions when he thought his collar might be felt, but the inquiries always seemed routine and quickly fizzled.

If he does 10,000 trades a year, of which 9,998 are entirely honest, who's really going to be able to pick out the other two as suspect?

The shares might have jumped after he bought them, but so what? He didn't know anything, just got lucky that time, officer.

He also admits, in a cheerful way that makes me forgive him most things, that on one occasion he traded on inside information and still managed to lose money. Getting done for that one would have been a right travesty, he says. Be double jeopardy that, wouldn't it? (No mate, it wouldn't.) Well anyway, it's got to be unconstitutional, not to mention highly embarrassing. He'd be a laughing stock in prison.

How rife is insider trading? It's hard to be sure, but there's no question City folk fear the regulators more than they did now that jail, rather than merely professional disgrace, is a possibility.

Still, there remains a feeling across town that at the highest levels of the big investment banks, there's so much information floating around about what governments or large companies are going to do next that temptation must prove irresistible.

Regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have lately done a good job of catching small fry, but big cheeses prove elusive. Which either indicates that the big cheeses have better lawyers, are smarter or – don't laugh – more honest.

The latest result for the Financial Services Authority led to the husband and wife team James and Miranda Sanders spending last night behind bars. (He got four years, she 10 months. James Swallow, a director at their broker Blue Index, also got 10 months.)

In common with other recent convictions, the details of the case suggest that these three were entirely unsuited to life as criminal masterminds.

If your brother-in-law is leaking you sensitive information, it'd make sense to be a bit careful about how you traded. You might not want to do it on your own account, for a start.

Even with better oversight from the watchdogs, traders reckon that unless they are greedy or sloppy, and don't do anything so stupid as to leave an email trail, they are still highly unlikely to be caught.

s.english@independent.co.uk