Share dilution per se is an ordinary activity: most publicly traded companies dilute their shares regularly by compensating their employees with stock options. Such dilution amounts to a few percent per year and is sometimes offset by stock buybacks. Even when dilution due to issuance of new stock is significant - during 2007-2009 Citigroup diluted its existing shareholders almost six-fold - it does not necessarily violate any laws, as long as it's done with proper disclosures and for legitimate business reasons (without this particular stock issue and resulting dilution Citigroup would not have survived). However, sometimes new shares are issued without proper disclosures or with specific intent by the management to defraud shareholders. As the original text states: "множество лазеек для мошенничества и другой сомнительной деятельности, так как законодательство просто не могло предусмотреть все открывшиеся возможности". Unfortunately, that situation persists to this day. And it is often up to the courts to decide whether a particular instance of dilution should be classified as мошенничество or just "другая сомнительная деятельность". For example in "The New York City Employees Retirement System v. Jobs, Case No. 5:06-CV-05208" the court found nothing wrong with actions of Apple, Inc. management which resulted in 20% dilution to shareholders. Whereas in "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Pegasus Wireless Corporation, Jasper Knabb, and Stephen Durland, Case No. 09-2302 (BZ)" the court found that "The forged documents and false SEC filings concealed the fact that Knabb and Durland were, in essence, printing shares and diluting the interests of innocent shareholders to enrich themselves.", resulting in heavy fines and civil penalties for the defendants.