In CASE 22

In CASE 22.4 Salman v.United States (2016) ,the court addressed the issue of whether a tipper breached a fiduciary duty by giving a tip to a relative who received no pecuniary benefit when the relative tipped a third party.How did the court rule?

A) Salman cannot be held liable as a tippee because the tipper did not personally receive money or property in exchange for the tips.
B) Fiduciary duty can only be breached when the tipper discloses the inside information for a personal benefit.
C) A tipper does not personally benefit unless the tipper's goal in disclosing inside information is to obtain money,property,or something of tangible value.
D) A gift of confidential information to anyone,not just a "trading relative or friend," is enough to prove securities fraud and upheld Salman's conviction for conspiracy and insider trading.