only requires a violation of Section 10(b), not the maintenance of a private suit under Section 10(b). Therefore, looking to the statutory language of the anti-fraud provision, we note that an individual violates Section 10(b) — and therefore triggers Section 29(b) — when he or she employs manipulative or deceptive devices in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. This situation is analogous to a government prosecution under Section 10(b), in which the government is not required to meet the normal standing requirements imposed on those asserting a private remedy, inasmuch as the government need not demonstrate that the defendant's conduct induced reliance by investors or affected the price of the security. See, e.g., United States v. Haddy, 134 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Even if we were to embrace the position of
holding that reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in a state enforcement action in idaho holding that reliance is not an element of the crime of stock manipulation holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that reliance is not an element to be proven under securities fraud in indiana holding the connection is an element