I&#x27;m having trouble being outraged. Some of their behaviour was clearly fraudulent, and yet it seems to be a case of obeying the letter of the rules, but not the spirit.<p>As for the alleged &quot;spoofing,&quot; again, I&#x27;m not sure what to say. It is normal for market makers to place orders on both sides of the market (though not at the same price). While either order could execute, they certainly don&#x27;t expect both to do so. And further, market makers are regularly making and cancelling orders that they don&#x27;t expect to execute. I think the court needs to find a clear distinction in what they did in order to convict them of a violation, and it is not obvious to me that the distinction exists.