I understand you didn't get the analogy, because...
Excuse me, but spoofing isn't really trading, that is cheating. Yes, he was an exceptional cheater, but we would like to see his track record without spoofing to make such a claim.
Now I saw someone claiming that people who saw him before the algo running, he was already profitable. Of course the question arises, why do the spoofing at all?
The stories a little contradictory about him by the way. Generally they say he was in and out of the market, then there is one story of his huge position that was left on overnight. His general approach and this story are contradictory...
--------------------------------
Anyhow, there are 3 different legal issues messed up as one:
1. Did he cause the crash? Well, he actually turned off the algo just before the crash, so the argument has to be that NOT running the algo caused it. Anyhow they won't be able to prove it, so verdict: INNOCENT
2. Did he spoof? Yes, and that being also illegal, verdict: GUILTY
3. Did he avoid UK taxes? Common sense tells me you have to pay more taxes on 40 million bucks gains than what he did, so verdict: GUILTY
To me the interesting part is that the UK government isn't even interested in the tax issue. Now once the US is done with him, there will be no money left for the UK treasury to get their hands on...
Sarao is an exceptional trader
Excuse me, but spoofing isn't really trading, that is cheating. Yes, he was an exceptional cheater, but we would like to see his track record without spoofing to make such a claim.
Now I saw someone claiming that people who saw him before the algo running, he was already profitable. Of course the question arises, why do the spoofing at all?
The stories a little contradictory about him by the way. Generally they say he was in and out of the market, then there is one story of his huge position that was left on overnight. His general approach and this story are contradictory...
--------------------------------
Anyhow, there are 3 different legal issues messed up as one:
1. Did he cause the crash? Well, he actually turned off the algo just before the crash, so the argument has to be that NOT running the algo caused it. Anyhow they won't be able to prove it, so verdict: INNOCENT
2. Did he spoof? Yes, and that being also illegal, verdict: GUILTY
3. Did he avoid UK taxes? Common sense tells me you have to pay more taxes on 40 million bucks gains than what he did, so verdict: GUILTY
To me the interesting part is that the UK government isn't even interested in the tax issue. Now once the US is done with him, there will be no money left for the UK treasury to get their hands on...
Last edited: