Which of the following is a valid defence against an insider dealing charge?

To understand why having no intent to deal is considered a valid defense against an insider dealing charge, it's important to examine the legal framework surrounding insider trading. Insider trading laws are designed to prevent individuals from profiting unfairly from non-public, material information about a company. A key component of proving insider trading is demonstrating that the individual had the intent to trade based on insider information.

If someone can provide evidence that they had no intent to engage in a trade, it weakens the prosecution's argument for insider trading. In legal contexts, intent is crucial; if a person did not intend to act on insider information or did not even consider it when making their trading decision, it can be a strong defense against allegations of insider dealing. The lack of intention indicates that the individual did not purposely exploit inside information for financial gain.

Other options mentioned may not adequately shield someone from insider trading accusations. For instance, receiving anonymous tips does not exempt one from scrutiny if the recipient also engages in trading based on potentially non-public information. Similarly, accessing information through public forums does not inherently offer protection if the material information was still not available to the general public or was disclosed only to a select audience. Finally, being a market analyst may indicate familiarity with the market, but it