Umm, the site you linked appears to say exactly the opposite. Here's what is says:
> Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security.
Here is an example it gives of insider trading:
> Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
Isn't that exactly what the parent is describing? The banks used nonpublic information given to them to provide other services.
As far as I can tell, I interpreted that page correctly. When a company approaches a bank to make a trade, there is no relationship of trust and confidence between them (unless there's some specific legal promise that says otherwise). Why do you think there is/should be? That page gives examples of people in such relationships: corporate officers, directors, employees, friends of employees, etc, who use a company's private information to trade for themselves.
But when a company (rather than some privileged employee), approaches a bank, and reveals that it wants to make a trade, it has no special relationship with the bank.
Another thing is that the meaning of "securities" is quite specific, and doesn't cover commodities. I don't think this would be insider trading even with securities.
Yet another downside of very broad interpretations of insider trading is that if someone invests time and effort into studying market conditions, the resulting research is non-public, yet they would be perfectly justified in trading on their own non-public information. It is only specific cases of non-public information obtained through privileged access that are insider trading.
A bank having access to a company's order flow by having that company reveal the flow to them is not engaged in insider trading, it's just doing a good job of participating in the market and studying market conditions. Someone else who wants to buy/sell the commodities from the bank gets a better price as a result. If the bank didn't have a good idea of the market conditions, it would offer worse prices to compensate itself for the uncertainty.
> Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security.
Here is an example it gives of insider trading:
> Employees of law, banking, brokerage and printing firms who were given such information to provide services to the corporation whose securities they traded;
Isn't that exactly what the parent is describing? The banks used nonpublic information given to them to provide other services.