Why didn't the Wongs buy options?

[demoship]

Hell, if you're going to be a douchebag and make a highly suspicious trade that's gonna get your ass busted, why didn't they just buy 15 million worth of the may 45 calls? That way they would've made like 500 million!!!!

At least go down in history as the biggest insider trade ever.

 

[a529612]

They should open the brokerage account with a China based firm. Do you think the SEC can do a thing there?

 

[bidask]

because it was the merrill broker who tipped him off and stockbrokers get higher commissions on stocks.

 

[a529612]

Then why would the broker turn them in?

 

[Jaxon]

Their original plan was to buy 1000 call options but there was a misunderstanding and the trade did not go through. The branch manager, when asked who had placed the large order was told, "That would be Wong," so the order was canceled......................... (rimshot)

 

[nkhoi]

answer: The Wongs think buying options looked more suspicious.

 

[Big Game Hunter]

Im interested in seeing whether the fact that all the evidence appears to be circumstantial will be enough to convict them of a crime. It should be borne in mind that technically they committed no crime in purchasing the shares. Inferences and allegations are one thing but without hard evidence to support those claims the charges wont hold up IMO. What they would really require is supporting evidence like phone conversations or letters, stuff of that nature. Without that corroborating evidence and given that the defense might spend up to eight million DEFENDING the claim in order to maintain possession over the money I think the prosecutions case will be very weak. Especially as if it were me I would seek to make the prosecution pay all legal costs in the event that a verdict of not guilty was reached. Just my 2 cents...

 

[Woz2000]

From what I hear, they have to extradite them to prosecute and that may not happen as the HK gov may not cooperate.

Even if they do, would they get a conviction since it's all circumstantial right now...unless they can get the broker to flip.

Wonder if they can keep the Merrill account frozen, at least they'd lose all that hard earned money.

 

[bidask]

it must be the Merrill Lynch Compliance people who turned him in. probably the compliance people who work in the u.s. offices because they don't give a crap about the clients in foreign offices.

Quote from a529612:

Then why would the broker turn them in?

 

[bidask]

it is generally not possible to prove intent or collusion on anything without hard evidence. unless there's an e-mail or letter, you cannot prove that the person had inside info. he can just say he threw a dart. a fortune teller told him after looking at his palm.

however, like i said in another thread, you are "innocent until investigated" like the guy said in Syrianna. his money is frozen. the burden is on him to prove that he's innocent.

Quote from Big Game Hunter:

Im interested in seeing whether the fact that all the evidence appears to be circumstantial will be enough to convict them of a crime. It should be borne in mind that technically they committed no crime in purchasing the shares. Inferences and allegations are one thing but without hard evidence to support those claims the charges wont hold up IMO. What they would really require is supporting evidence like phone conversations or letters, stuff of that nature. Without that corroborating evidence and given that the defense might spend up to eight million DEFENDING the claim in order to maintain possession over the money I think the prosecutions case will be very weak. Especially as if it were me I would seek to make the prosecution pay all legal costs in the event that a verdict of not guilty was reached. Just my 2 cents...