New York Times
Congress has never strictly defined
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act
It would also prohibit the communication of this nonpublic information to any other person, provided the person then capitalizes on it or communicates it to someone else who capitalizes on it.
Use of this information would be wrongful if it was obtained through, or its use would constitute, theft, bribery, misrepresentation, espionage; a violation of any federal law protecting computer data or intellectual property or privacy of computer users; conversion, misappropriation or other unauthorized and deceptive taking of the information; or a breach of any fiduciary duty, confidentiality agreement, breach of contract or breach of any other person or other relationship of trust and confidence.
It won't matter whether the person capitalizing on the information knew where the information came from or whether any personal benefit was paid or promised by anyone in the communication, so long as the person using the information to trade was aware or consciously avoided being aware or recklessly disregarded that such information was wrongfully obtained or communicated. However, no one will be held liable solely because the person controls or employs a person who conducted insider trading provided that such a manager did not participate in the act.
According to the Times, the legislation would make proving insider trading much easier for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice than under current law.