Which statement is true about criminal liability in fraudulent trading?

Fraudulent trading occurs when a company is conducted with the intent to defraud creditors or for any fraudulent purpose. The key element of fraudulent trading is the dishonesty of the individuals involved in managing the company. This concept applies regardless of whether the company is solvent at the time of the fraudulent behavior.

If a company is running fraudulent trades, it can still be held liable even if it appears to be solvent, as the fraudulent actions are centered on the deceitful intentions of the directors and not merely the company's financial state. The emphasis is on protecting creditors from being misled and ensuring accountability from those who manage the business. Therefore, the nature of criminal liability for fraudulent trading is tied to the actions taken by directors to defraud, not the solvency status of the company itself.

The other options do not capture this essential aspect of fraudulent trading. For instance, the notion that it only applies when the company is solvent misrepresents the broad applicability of the law. Additionally, labeling fraudulent trading as a civil matter overlooks the criminal implications when fraudulent intent and actions are present. Lastly, suggesting that it can only be pursued by creditors ignores the potential for broader intervention by regulatory authorities, who have vested interests in enforcing the law against fraudulent trading.