The recent allegations of current and former CEOs of 12 securities brokerages is causing stir not only within the industry but also within the financial regulatory authorities. The CEOs are accused of having provided ‘scalpers,’(in and out traders) dealing in ELWs with direct use of the brokerages dedicated lines allowing more split-second advantages which constitutes ‘unfair means’(Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act). There are a few critical issues regarding the prosecutors claims. Arbitrage plays a vital role in providing liquidity and promoting market efficiency. The current accusations of the prosecutors maybe construed as an attack against arbitrage trading. Secondly, in order to claim that a faster execution speed constitutes ‘unfair means’, the premise should be that it is possible to provide equal speed market access to every market participants. However, even within the same trading environment, in terms of nanoseconds(one billionth of a second), it is impossible to provide the exact same execution speed and therefore this is an existing impossibility. Thirdly, after the repeal of NYSE Rule 390 in 2000, the US has promulgated the Reg. NMS in 2005 and the EU has implemented MiFID in 2007. Major financial markets around the world are developing their policies acknowledging the investors needs and willingness to pay for a more efficient and faster execution speed. 60 exchanges around the world are promoting DMA(Direct Market Access) in one way or the other allowing if the investors are willing to bear the cost. This in the eyes of the prosecutors seems to be illegal and unfair advantages. Differentiating execution speed may seem controversial. However, 1) the benefit and role of arbitrage, 2) existing or initial impossibility of providing absolute equal execution speeds, 3) the international practice and trend, 4) the cases of US and Japan, 5) the effects of the current LP’s role as the sole quote provider are all reasons not to consider different execution speeds as ‘unfair means’. The prosecutors charges that providing faster execution services is against Subparagraph 1 Paragraph 1 Article 178 of the Capital Markets Act needs to be reviewed.