SEC Sues Hong Kong Couple Who Made 8.2 Million From Dow Jones Stock (on Buyout Bid)
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
Please keep in mind that I'm not putting down on anyone who's arguing against me and all I want to do is share the knowledge I have and learn something new from you guys as well (for instance ByLoSellHi, enough with previews and sneak peaks and please cut to the chase show us the money - that'd be great! 
).
Let me go on the record and say I think these a-holes are amoral bastards who stole from honest people and deserve all their assets confisticated and serving many years in jail but my hatred toward them is one thing, serving them justice is quite another. I hope everyone realizes the distinction here.
).Let me go on the record and say I think these a-holes are amoral bastards who stole from honest people and deserve all their assets confisticated and serving many years in jail but my hatred toward them is one thing, serving them justice is quite another. I hope everyone realizes the distinction here.
She wasn't charged because the government couldn't prove that, or didn't think they could.
They went with a surer thing.
This has no relevance to whether the government could have made a prima facie case of insider trading against her. The prosecution often brings easier to prove charges, and leaves out the harder to proves ones, when prosecuting an individual.
Their goal isn't affected.
Cheers.
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040309.html
Quote from JSL_Capital:
Please keep in mind that I'm not putting down on anyone who's arguing against me and all I want to do is share the knowledge I have and learn something new from you guys as well (for instance ByLoSellHi, enough with previews and sneak peaks and please cut to the chase show us the money - that'd be great!
I'm working on it, sheesh.
There are New York Strip steaks waiting for me, damnit.
Exactly. Even though convicting her of insider trading would have been a major moral victory for the government in times of Enron and its ilk, they couldn't squeeze enough lemonade out of that charge to send her to prison, even with all the tangible evidence and a star witness who was directly involved in the whole transaction so they found a derivative after the investigation had started and used it against her. What does that say about the insider trading law?
That's just not true...of course if you have material information, no matter how it was received, you can't act on it.
Oh man, did someone just press the reset button?
