Setting supposed reasons or intent aside, I'm curious.What is...

Setting supposed reasons or intent aside, I'm curious.

What is the actual difference between market manipulation and market participation? Because logically the more liquidity you control the more you can control or influence the price in a given market or for a given thing. The smaller the market the less is required. You also cannot participate in the market without affecting the prices, that is what supply and demand is.

I find the idea that the direction (i.e. it must be a short, because no one complains about upwards manipulation if they have a stake in whatever it is) plus the liquidity involved makes it suddenly transition into a criminal act. Further I don't see how changing your mind or your position from +/-, in and of itself justifies it either really. Not on it's own.

I probably I don't know enough of the details but based on what I do, if there is only the shorting activity itself to justify it, then this seems to suggest that a large enough short position is deemed sufficient grounds for a search warrant to be issued i.e. Liquidity + Shorting = Reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal offense has been committed. Whereas, Liquidity + Long = An orderly and informed market... It makes the law seem rather selective doesn't it.

I guess what I'm trying to work out is if this is a case of the friends in high places or if this is some new paradigm post Royal Commission where anyone who can command a large enough short on something ends up getting their door kicked in because shorting is evil now? Maybe it's both? Maybe we're about to find out? I'd be interested to know if there are other precedents for short selling specifically because this may not be new at all and I just didn't know.