Again, the example's purpose was to refute the cla

Again, the example's purpose was to refute the claim that the SEC is always protecting the criminals by looking the other way. The fact that it happened ten years ago shouldn't be used as a reason to discredit the story like it never happened.

Here are more recent examples.

2017 - Millennium Settles Charges of Illegal Short Selling in Advance of Stock Offerings
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-203

2016 - Enforcement: SEC Charges Sex Products CEO With Fraud; FINRA Fines Short Seller
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2016/09/09/enforc...-with-frau

2015 - SEC Charges Six Firms for Short Selling Violations in Advance of Stock Offerings
https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-239.html

2014 - SEC Charges Two College Professors in Naked Short Selling Scheme
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2014-20

2013 - SEC Charges 23 Firms With Short Selling Violations in Crackdown on Potential Manipulation in Advance of Stock Offerings
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-182

2012 - SEC Charges Brothers With Short Selling Violations
https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-22htm

The SEC went after the big boys also.

2016 - Case Sheds Light on Goldman’s Role as Lender in Short Sales
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/business/c...sales.html