(Tenn.2002); see also Kradel v. Piper Indus., Inc., 60 S.W.3d 744, 754 & n. 6 (Tenn.2001). The inclusion of the word “willfully” in section 48-2-123, therefore, suggests an interpretation consistent with the 1956 Uniform Securities Act. We also look to interpretations of provisions in other jurisdictions that, like the Tennessee Securities Act of 1980, are derived from the 1956 Uniform Securities Act. Kradel, 60 S.W.3d at 751 n. 2. The clear majority of state courts, when considering criminal prosecutions for either the sale of unregistered securities or the sale of securities by an unregistered individual, have held that the state need not prove that the accused knew his acts were illegal in order to behave willfully. See, e.g., Bayhi v. State, 629 So.2d 782, 792 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Andresen, 256 Conn. 313, 773 A.2d
holding breach of best execution duty is a material misrepresentation in connection with the purchase or sale of the securities recognizing defense in securities case holding that evidence was sufficient to support convictions for willfully engaging in fraudulent conduct in connection with sale of securities because kjnowledge that the act violates the securities laws  is not relevant holding that 1 even if some conduct is not actionable as securities fraud that conduct cannot support a civil rico claim if it was also undertaken in connection with the purchase of a security and 2 conduct in maintaining ponzi scheme was conduct undertaken in connection with the purchase or sale of securities holding that puffery is not actionable under the securities laws