DeepSight:


Mo ti gbo. Epele.

PS: The discussion as I understand it is not limited to that question alone.

No it is not but you cannot force me to discuss law with you
I am not interested in any artificial argumentation



if you quote it should be about what you quoted
especially when you quote and start by saying

DeepSight:


I honestly think you guys have over simplified this issue and there are layers of rationale that you are simply skipping. It bears repeating that she did not disclose the information to her husband. .

. Something totally irrelevant to what you quoted
He said she was wrong to have reported him I questioned that and you quoted to say what quite frankly was totally irrelevant to that conversation.
Thus you were trolling and being a nuisance

aribisala0:

No it is not but you cannot force me to discuss law with you
I am not interested in any artificial argumentation



if you quote it should be about what you quoted
especially when you quote and start by saying
. Something totally irrelevant to what you quoted
He said she was wrong to have reported him I questioned that and you quoted to say what quite frankly was totally irrelevant to that conversation.
This you were trolling and being a nuisance

Very well. I didn't realize that I came across that way and tender my unreserved apologies.

talk2hb1:

No foul play was suspected, reread the post.

I don't know what you're reading. Many defending this man only shows why Nigeria is where she is today.

Loudon did not deny the allegations outlined in the SEC complaint, which was filed at the US district court for southern Texas, and instead agreed to a partial judgment, subject to court approval. That partial judgment will ban him from taking company leadership roles, force him to repay the money he made from the trade – with interest – on top of an extra fine to be determined by the court.

He is facing criminal charges from the US attorney’s office for the southern district of Texas

DeepSight:


Very well. I didn't realize that I came across that way and tender my unreserved apologies.

Accepted
I edited my post BTW just for clarity

DeepSight:


There could be any number of undisclosed and non-obvious reasons for that.



I am sorry but I still fail to see her negligence. And even if I have it mixed up between metres or feet, she, as far it it appears on the surface, was in a home office, presumably a separate room. If she has not herself utilized that inforamtion and someone else has, to hold her culpable you would need to show that she was in on it.

The only argument I can accept in this regard would be the one which says, well she had to report it once she knew. That works fair enough - from a disclosure point of view and conflict of interest. However the mere fact of her husband investing does not create a criminal culpability on her part if she did nothing to divulge the information to him.



This is the second strange analogy you are making. Again, not apples for apples.



And yet again, it is not an assumption. For heavens sake we are told how he got the information. Thus I am not assuming he got it elsewhere. I am not making any such statement as a fact. I am posing a question to you based on an imaginary scenario in order to interrogate the specific question as to if the mere fact of marriage to her - if taken by itself precludes him from investing in a company which her employer is considering either buying or investing in - if he were to come across that information by accident.

It is a hypothetical question to interrogate the basis of guilt. Twoods did not understand this, and it has missed you too.
Perhaps there is something wrong with my communication style.

So I'm wondering why you have to shift goalpost to create an imaginary case when the straightforward facts of this case has been laid bare.

The technicalities are not exactly the same, so what's the need for the pointless exertions?

My analogy was to demonstrate a common point which is negligence.

And the answer to your fantasy 'case' is yes; the husband is still precluded from investing in shares of a company his wife is involved in whether he got the information from his wife or not. In these circles, the golden rule is that independence should also be in appearance/perception and not just in mind. And once the wife becomes aware, she is obliged to report or risk jail term.

MVLOX:
The husband self no sharp.... That kind thing Na croonies you go use so that nothing can be traced to you

hmmm! Nigrians i ..

aribisala0:


You cannot wake a person pretending to be asleep
Let us.say it was a US military secret. Even without any conspiracy whatsoever just negligently allowing that to fall to enemies can attract life imprisonment
This even applies to the President and how he handles classified documents
Imagine a person claiming to be a lawyer not grasping a basic concept like criminal negligence

💯. This is a better analogy than mine in previous response to him. The guy is just on an expedition of pedantry.

Now a key point to make here is what constitutes criminality or what is prohibited?

Trading in the stocks of a company whilst in possession of information not available to the public
Doing so will constitute a criminal offence.
Was that the case here and did the man know that he should not have done this?

ThierryJay:


💯. This is a better analogy than mine in previous response to him. The guy is just on an expedition of pedantry.

There is nothing wrong in playing devil's advocate if you find a willing playmate

For negligence cases the test is about a failure to exercise reasonable care rather than any active intent and thus considerations of mens rea are different

@ Thierryjay what do you make of Pelosi's case.

aribisala0:
Now a key point to make here is what constitutes criminality or what is prohibited?

Trading in the stocks of a company whilst in possession of information not available to the public
Doing so will constitute a criminal offence.
Was that the case here and did the man know that he should not have done this?

Surely there can be a little nuance to things. Because if the definition is strictly as you put it, and if it can admit of no exceptions, then there will be problematic scenarios. Let us for just a moment put aside this present case and apply your definition strictly.

Would it then be the case that anyone who accidentally comes across such information is precluded from investing in the concerned company.

So to make it clear, I am walking down the corridor of an office I visited and overhear something interesting regarding a company. Am I therefore barred from investing in that company since what I have overheard is not available to the public.

Isolate this example for itself and weigh it against your definition of insider trading. Mind you, your definition doesn't even take any note of the word "insider."

Please if you find this post inappropriate in that you were speaking to someone else, kindly ignore me. I only chip in as I believe we are now in the clear.

tollyboy5:


I don't know what you're reading. Many defending this man only shows why Nigeria is where she is today.

You are not being realistic, you are just being emotional.
From Morality view, the man is wrong.
But this is reality, if the man was his son will she report him?

So whilst it may be argued that he betrayed the trust of his wife
That is not the key issue

The key issue is

Trading in the stock whilst in possession of information not available to the public.

1 Did he have such information .can it be concluded reasonably that
2. he knew the information was not available to the public?

That is all the matters

How he got the information may be useful in establishing 1 and 2 but does not matter of itself.
It would make no difference if he was a cleaner and found a document with the information in a dustbin or someone forgot a document next to him on a plane or train.
Or it was a random phone call he heard at the airport

emkz:


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/23/us-man-accused-of-making-18m-from-insider-trading-wife-remote-calls-working-from-home

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68379318

Mumu wife

DeepSight:


Surely there can be a little nuance to things. Because if the definition is strictly as you put it, and if it can admit of no exceptions, then there will be problematic scenarios. Let us for just a moment put aside this present case and apply your definition strictly.

Would it then be the case that anyone who accidentally comes across such information is precluded from investing in the concerned company.

So to make it clear, I am walking down the corridor of an office I visited and overhear something interesting regarding a company. Am I therefore barred from investing in that company since what I have overheard is not available to the public.

Isolate this example for itself and weigh it against your definition of insider trading. Mind you, your definition doesn't even take any note of the word "insider."

Please if you find this post inappropriate in that you were speaking to someone else, kindly ignore me. I only chip in as I believe we are now in the clear.

I have already addressed this in my penultimate post
I think we are also in agreement that there is probably no limit to what can be argued in court
However to my understanding it does not matter how the information is got what matters is that
The information is not available to the public and the court is convinced that the accused knew or ought to know that

aribisala0:

I have already addressed this in my penultimate post
I think we are also in agreement that there is probably no limit to what can be argued in court
However to my understanding it does not matter how the information is got what matters is that
The information is not available to the public and the court is convinced that the accused knew or ought to know that

Yes I saw your post on that. I have to disagree though, as I feel that is too exacting. The example of even overhearing something in an airport seems extreme to me.

Inside trading dey sweet!

Now, leaving both law and morals aside. If one were to be Machiavellian.

That man should have just used one of many possible trustworthy proxy arrangements and thereafter sealed his lips forever.

Wahala pro max

talk2hb1:

You are not being realistic, you are just being emotional.
From Morality view, the man is wrong.
But this is reality, if the man was his son will she report him?

You are also not being realistic
People have sentenced their kids to death and executed them
There is nothing new under the sun

Her actions do not have to be seen as morality . In fact they can be sseen as self preservation Based on the knowledge that if she did not do so she would spend a very long time in prison
Besides it was not an either or choice

Whether or not she reports he likely will be discovered and go to prison. So why should she add herself t the prison population. We are Talking excess of ten years.
So she was supposed to keep quiet and live in fear waiting for the day the police will knock.

Many of you talk like this because you lack exposure.
The chances of being caught are very high because systems trade on software and with Artificial intelligence it will pick out any traders who are "excelling" either to detect fraud or exceptional skill
Also in The US he and his wife will file joint tax returns at the end of the year.
Again if he has not been making that kind of money another red flag will be raised unless they decide tongues the money.another very serious crime

Why should she risk spending the best years of her life in prison because of another person

DeepSight:


Yes I saw your post on that. I have to disagree though, as I feel that is too exacting. The example of even overhearing something in an airport seems extreme to me.

You are entitled to your opinion
The words are clear
Trading with information not available to the public
You can interpret it how you like

DeepSight:
Now, leaving both law and morals aside. If one were to be Machiavellian.

That man should have just used one of many possible trustworthy proxy arrangements and thereafter sealed his lips forever.

From a trading perspective. Yes I was wondering when we should get to this part of the discussion
How to chop and clean mouth

aribisala0:

You are entitled to your opinion
The words are clear
Trading with information not available to the public
You can interpret it how you like

Here is how the US SEC defines Illegal Insider Trading -

"Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security."

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/insider-trading

Please note the words "in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence."

On the basis of that I humbly submit that that relationship must exist first.

DeepSight:


Here is how the US SEC defines Illegal Insider Trading -

"Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security."

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/insider-trading

Please note the words "in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence."

On the basis of that I humbly submit that that relationship must exist first.

Please do not make any submissions to me
I am not interested in that game
You are free to believe what you like

MNPI is understood by those who have to

aribisala0:

From a trading perspective. Yes I was wondering when we should get to this part of the discussion
How to chop and clean mouth

I taya for some people oh. He was smart enough to quickly take advantage but not smart enough to use a proxy. Haba.

But now that we are away from strict law and morals, this is why I fear very strict people with high integrity. They can't negotiate a messy situation. I mean, as husband and wife how is there no possibility of putting heads together and saying, ah, na yawa be this oh, how we fit organize ourselves to escape. I mean, just put heads together. But for that very strict person of high integrity such a conversation may be impossible.

I personally feel that marriages should be stronger than that even where one or both parties may have messed up.

aribisala0:


Please do not make any submissions to me
I am not interested in that game
You are free to believe what you like

MNPI is understood by those who have to

Game ke? I am not playing any game. It appears you are still touchy on this matter. I thought we had progressed beyond that.

It's okay, no worries.
Have a good day.

DeepSight:


I taya for some people oh. He was smart enough to quickly take advantage but not smart enough to use a proxy. Haba.

But now that we are away from strict law and morals, this is why I fear very strict people with high integrity. They can't negotiate a messy situation. I mean, as husband and wife how is there no possibility of putting heads together and saying, ah, na yawa be this oh, how we fit organize ourselves to escape. I mean, just put heads together. But for that very strict person of high integrity such a conversation may be impossible.

I personally feel that marriages should be stronger than that even where one or both parties may have messed up.

Using a proxy sounds easy in theory but it is not in practice

In this case he traded with nearly 3 million.
So how will be transfer the money without detection
Will the proxy use their own money? 3 million from where
Finally the issue of TRUSTED is not that straightforward
People are.People
In summary it sounds easy on paper but not realistic to me
Maybe he should have been less greedy and gone for a much smaller profit like 50 to 100K
As the Yoruba say die to ninu nkan oninkan

Impressive

DeepSight:


Game ke? I am not playing any game. It appears you are still touchy on this matter. I thought we had progressed beyond that.

It's okay, no worries.
Have a good day.

I am not touchy
I am not interested in going down that road with you and already made it clear so what is your problem?

aribisala0:


Using a proxy sounds easy in theory but it is not in practice

In this case he traded with nearly 3 million.
So how will be transfer the money without detection
Will the proxy use their own money? 3 million from where
Finally the issue of TRUSTED is not that straightforward
People are.People
In summary it sounds easy on paper but not realistic to me
Maybe he should have been less greedy and gone for a much smaller profit like 50 to 100K
As the Yoruba say die to ninu nkan oninkan

Yeah, I hear you. I guess "wisdom is profitable to direct" as the good book says.

But e sure me die say people plenty wey dey roll with deals like that all the time.

aribisala0:

I am not touchy
I am not interested in going down that road with you and already made it clear so what is your problem?

Fair enough. That's cool.

aribisala0:

You are also not being realistic
People have sentenced their kids to death and executed them
There is nothing new under the sun

Her actions do not have to be seen as morality . In fact they can be sseen as self preservation Based on the knowledge that if she did not do so she would spend a very long time in prison
Besides it was not an either or choice

Whether or not she reports he likely will be discovered and go to prison. So why should she add herself t the prison population. We are Talking excess of ten years.
So she was supposed to keep quiet and live in fear waiting for the day the police will knock.

Many of you talk like this because you lack exposure.
The chances of being caught are very high because systems trade on software and with Artificial intelligence it will pick out any traders who are "excelling" either to detect fraud or exceptional skill
Also in The US he and his wife will file joint tax returns at the end of the year.
Again if he has not been making that kind of money another red flag will be raised unless they decide tongues the money.another very serious crime

Why should she risk spending the best years of her life in prison because of another person

Yet she is a betrayal