U.S.Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara said his officedisagrees with a federal appeals court ruling that he says transforms thedefinition and prosecution of insider trading.

The 2014ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in United States v. Newman means that prosecutors hoping to win aninsider trading case must show defendants have received a tangible personalbenefit, Bharara said. That threshold both makes cases more difficult toprosecute and displays little understanding of the real world.

"Wethink that's naive … basically everyone who's weighed in on the issue, outsideof the counsel of the defendants, has criticized the decision," Bhararasaid.

Thejudge in the case and other legal commentators also sided with his office,Bharara said — minus one notable journalistic voice in New York. "The Wall Street Journal editorial pageapparently thinks all insider trading is totally awesome," Bharara joked.

Bhararasaid his office had written to the Second Appeals court to reconsider and alsosubmitted the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, though both refused to reconsiderthe matter.

Hesaid that the U.S. high court has agreed to hear a California case that willconsider the insider trading and personal benefits under the primary law usedin insider trading enforcement cases.