tollyboy5:

As you can see, in your so called saner clime that is fraud.
And he has a case with the jury

So if his wife Did not betray him, will he have case with the jury.

TWoods:


The main thrust of your "arguments" has simply been "I'm a lawyer and I'm smart". Nothing of substance. As someone said, quite draining. It would have been fun to trade shoulda woulda arguments but this is not the case. This is as clear-cut as it gets. Insider trading is a crime. I would have had a better opinion of you if you were willing to take up his appeal and put your legal theories to the test. But of course, we all know everyone is a lion online and a mouse off it.

Tell them. As soon as they saw money and woman, case dismissed.
Man did nothing.
Maybe, they think it's Nigeria where everything happens and as long as you settle, you are not guilty.

nairalanda1:


Yes because there was no evidence he did insider trading. I don't like Pelosi, but no evidence, nothing

In this case the evidence was blatant

Plus there are many big american men who have gone to jail for the same crime.

What evidence was blatant if not for their confessions?

The difference here is the Pelosi's have made no confessions and Nancy being the baddie agbalagba she is, stands strong in her position that she shares no info with her husband. Can you prove she is not lying - a question you asked above in this case, if the woman were to deny knowledge.

DeepSight:


Someone above brought up the case of Nancy Pelosi and her husband.
What do you say on that?

https://africa.businessinsider.com/politics/nancy-pelosis-husband-bought-at-least-dollar1-million-in-alphabet-stock-days-before/988lvdv

Yeah so? At the moment there is no evidence. And I happen to think Pelosi is guilty.

Even then they are passing laws to prevent such from happening right now.

Drop the whatabaoutism oga.

DeepSight:


What evidence was blatant if not for their confessions?

The difference here is the Pelosi's have made no confessions and Nancy being the baddie agbalagba she is, stands strong in her position that she shares no info with her husband. Can you prove she is not lying - a question you asked above in this case, if the woman were to deny knowledge.

Oga, enough.

Came4amod:


This is what people used to destroy Nigeria and enriched thier pockets ..blue collar fraud .. most of the billionaires In this country has done something like this and fact is no one is arrested for these crimes .. even just by Inflating the estimated value of a company and selling shares .. is called money glitch ..but fact is you arw stealling away the country by the law of action and reaction.... Inflation is the number 1 killer in Nigeria ..

God bless you. Unfortunately many people here commenting don't understand it like this.

talk2hb1:

So if his wife Did not betray him, will he have case with the jury.

Oh yes.

There are many big men who did same and no one reported, but dem still dey for jail.

Sec scrutinizes a lot of records..

aribisala0:
One thing is clear from this thread.
Nigerians have a very different moral compass that is out of sync with everyone else.

What he did was criminal
According to the SEC in the US, a conviction for insider trading may lead to a maximum fine of $5 million and up to 20 years of imprisonment.



There is absolutely no way that he did not know this.

The fact that he "confessed" to his wife shows he knows he broke the law.

in such situations if there was any evidence that his wife knew about it and they went to trial

SHE WOULD FACE THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWENTY YEARS. NOT HIM

Imagine for something she knew nothing about?

And some morons are saying she betrayed him? Who betrayed who here?

If your sister spent 20 years in prison for this would you clap for her and say she is a good wife material?

Nigerians really need their heads examined because most of them are not normal.
They often think they are smart when they are very dumb

Those planning to Japa need to examine themselves. The criminal attitude many Nigerians have will get them into trouble.
Even if the man did not confess he would have been under suspicion. And investigations Someone who does not normally do so wakes up one day and spends nearly $3 million on shares and makes 70% profit and you think no one will notice? Only a stupid Nigerian will believe that
Now the moment it is noticed how long will it take to join the dots and connect him to his wife.

Many people still operate with the mentality of a thief born before CCTV

Insider trading is taken very seriously indeed and the punishment is very harsh
His wife knew this and did the right thing

That is the way their system works
That is why their system works

Nigerians. Don't expect anything better.
They accused politicians everytime yet politicians are mirror image of Nigerians.
Wonder why the country is in a mess.
This low iq mentality.
We complain cos our man or us is not yet at the corridors of power.
This generation will be worst.

talk2hb1:

No, She Betrayed her Husband!
She never entrust any information with him, he did what every other investors do by fishing for information, but unfortunately he fished too close to home.
She exposing her husband confidentiality is betrayal, absolutely betrayal.

How do you people reason? She betrayed her husband? Her husband betrayed her instead. There's what is called oath of secrecy and reporting of conflict of interest situation people sign in big companies and you must report such a case once it happens.

nairalanda1:


Yes because there was no evidence he did insider trading. I don't like Pelosi, but no evidence, nothing

In this case the evidence was blatant

Plus there are many big american men who have gone to jail for the same crime.

Exactly what the whole argument raging on this topic is all about.

Nancy pelosi had privileged information.


The husband by some stroke of luck invested and sold stocks in some company.

Coincidentally, that company was the same one Nancy had privileged information on.

SEC and FBI couldn't by virtue of marriage or closeness implicate Nancy of divulging privileged secrets to the husband.


Back to our case, if the man has kept mum about where he sourced the info. For his deal, it was left for SEC or the FBI to do their investigation and prove her culpability.

talk2hb1:

No, She Betrayed her Husband!
She never entrust any information with him, he did what every other investors do by fishing for information, but unfortunately he fished too close to home.
She exposing her husband confidentiality is betrayal, absolutely betrayal.

Women are dangerous. For say the guy decided to divorce her to spend his new found wealth in young pussy, he'd enjoy single life and live long but now both of them are living uncomfortable lives. Fear fish brain

nairalanda1:


Oh yes.

There are many big men who did same and no one reported, but dem still dey for jail.

Sec scrutinizes a lot of records..

True. Mergers and acquisitions deals will be scrutinised. It’s only a matter of time before they found out what he did and by then, his wife would be in a bigger trouble. She was very wise. To hell with that marriage. He betrayed her knowing what her job was.

ThierryJay:


It is actually a simple straightforward case which is why the offender has made a plea deal and does not even want it to get to trial. Or you think he isnt aware if he had a good chance?

The issue with your assumptions is that they are wrong. In that sector in the US, she does not have to disclose or conspire with her husband before she becomes culpable. She is culpable because she was negligent in allowing confidential info to leak to a spouse.

Imagine someone strolling in public in present day Nigeria with wads of dollar notes visible from his pocket and gets robbed. 100% of the time, the person gets blamed for inviting the crime and not only the robbers.

On your second assumption, you have forgotten that the man still has to prove to the court without an iota of doubt that he got the information from elsewhere. Pray tell, how would he demonstrate that in this instance when every lie of his would be tested?

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

Draslo:

Women are dangerous. For say the guy decided to divorce her to spend his new found wealth in young pussy, he'd enjoy single life and live long but now both of them are living uncomfortable lives. Fear fish brain

This one no be woman dangerous matter.

The man did insider trading from illicitly listening to his wife's calls.

Plus even if he did as you suggested, the sec would have still caught him based on the records. The wife too would be in soup if she didn't report on time.

matify83:


Exactly what the whole argument raging on this topic is all about.

Nancy pelosi had privileged information.


The husband by some stroke of luck invested and sold stocks in some company.

Coincidentally, that company was the same one Nancy had privileged information on.

SEC and FBI couldn't by virtue of marriage or closeness implicate Nancy of divulging privileged secrets to the husband.


Back to our case, if the man has kept mum about where he sourced the info. For his deal, it was left for SEC or the FBI to do their investigation and prove her culpability.

Even then, till there is hard evidence.

( And I wish there was)

ThierryJay:


It is actually a simple straightforward case which is why the offender has made a plea deal and does not even want it to get to trial. Or you think he isnt aware if he had a good chance?

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

The issue with your assumptions is that they are wrong. In that sector in the US, she does not have to disclose or conspire with her husband before she becomes culpable. She is culpable because she was negligent in allowing confidential info to leak to a spouse.

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.

Imagine someone strolling in public in present day Nigeria with wads of dollar notes visible from his pocket and gets robbed. 100% of the time, the person gets blamed for inviting the crime and not only the robbers.

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

On your second assumption, you have forgotten that the man still has to prove to the court without an iota of doubt that he got the information from elsewhere. Pray tell, how would he demonstrate that in this instance when every lie of his would be tested?

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.

TheRealOwner:
Wait o, na the wife dey work, husband make money, con go tell wife, wife vex to report give her Ogas, her Ogas con sack d wife, she con divorce husband

E get as this matter be o

Oyibo people too mumu abeg.

Leave their matter.

talk2hb1:

So if his wife Did not betray him, will he have case with the jury.

If he did not betray his wife he would have no case with the jury. But now he did and report himself, if he didn't the deal will be scrutinized and still get caught.

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

I cant see the negligence here. Epele o.
And secondly - you seem to assume that once any information is heard from you, you must have been negligent. For heavens sake, your lack of rigor is tiresome.

tuoyoojo:
Knowledge is power

But wisdom is key

The intention of the man was good

But see how it turned out

Nor be everything person suppose open him mouth dey talk

I dey talk am everytime!!! Even your wife ooo.

spartachico:
I trust my Nigerian babe, wow you are genius , let us keep this between us and stay low

And u and her will not be found out?
Childish talk.

nairalanda1:


This one no be woman dangerous matter.

The man did insider trading from illicitly listening to his wife's calls.

Plus even if he did as you suggested, the sec would have still caught him based on the records. The wife too would be in soup if she didn't report on time.

Make we hear word. This is exactly how company executives make their money. Many celebrated billionaires are who they are because of insider trading. Make we hear word abeg. From Wall Street to Lagos Marina, people dey run am daily

matify83:


Exactly what the whole argument raging on this topic is all about.

Nancy pelosi had privileged information.


The husband by some stroke of luck invested and sold stocks in some company.

Coincidentally, that company was the same one Nancy had privileged information on.

SEC and FBI couldn't by virtue of marriage or closeness implicate Nancy of divulging privileged secrets to the husband.


Back to our case, if the man has kept mum about where he sourced the info. For his deal, it was left for SEC or the FBI to do their investigation and prove her culpability.

FYI nairalanda1 , Twoods, aribisala0

Draslo:

Make we hear word. This is exactly how company executives make their money. Many celebrated billionaires are who they are because of insider trading. Make we hear word abeg. From Wall Street to Lagos Marina, people dey run am daily

And many of those same company executives are or have gone to prison as a result.

DeepSight:


I cant see the negligence here. Epele o.
And secondly - you seem to assume that once any information is heard from you, you must have been negligent. For heavens sake, your lack of rigor is tiresome.

I did not speak to you. You are beginning to constitute a nuisance and I will change it for you
You quoted me several times when I addressed others the last one I corrected your nonsense but you did not respond . You went into a biography about how you became a SAN when the issue was a moral point about the wife being wrong to report him. I was not speaking to you then but you butted I in rudely to share your biography
Since you did not respond in my mind I am done with you

You claim to be a lawyer ,with atrocious English and seem to be looking for a partner in juvenile and endless argument about the law in this case. I am not interested such an enterprise. .That is a settled matter now

aribisala0:

I did not speak to you. You are beginning to constitute a nuisance and I will change it for you
You quoted me several times when I addressed others the last one I corrected your nonsense but you did not respond . You went into a biography about how you became a SAN when the issue was a moral point about the wife being wrong to report him. I was not speaking to you then but you butted I in rudely to share your biography
Since you did not respond in my mind I am done with you

You claim to be a lawyer ,with atrocious English and seem to be looking for a partner in juvenile and endless argument about the law in this case. I am not interested. .That is a settled matter now

This was the response I made to you and it was not about me or my career -

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. It bears repeating that he is not an insider - and in this regard it bears repeating that the question as to their marriage, relationship, proximity, et all, only arises if she disclosed to him or conspired with him. Once that is not the case, an argument can be made that this does not meet the test of insider trading. Because you would have to begin to show that even where one comes across information accidentally or randomly, one cannot invest based on that, as a non-insider. Several things bear repeating here which you are glossing over. This is why I have painstakingly tried to delineate and draw lines between the fact of the marriage and how the information was procured. This is why I have tried to give analogies to split the issues. But Mr. Twoods and others say I am speaking grammar.

Oh well. Perhaps I am. Or perhaps they simply dont think as lawyers are trained to think.

PS: I am not an American Lawyer. I am a Nigerian, Common Law Lawyer. So I readily admit I do not know all American laws. I will readily raise up my hands and say, thank you for schooling me if someone comes along and shows me an American law that says you cannot invest in any company which may be invested in or taken over by a company which a relative of yours is presently working in, if you came across that information accidentally. And in the absence of such a law, then its something that has to be reasoned out jurisprudentially. What is jurisprudence? It simply means the philosophy behind the law. And that is why I have been raising analogies.

But oh well.

As to the rest of your post, insults and belligerent tone, all I can say is I have heard.
Have a good day.

TheRealOwner:
Wait o, na the wife dey work, husband make money, con go tell wife, wife vex to report give her Ogas, her Ogas con sack d wife, she con divorce husband

E get as this matter be o

After divorce guess where money goes.....

Mpanyi:


How do you people reason? She betrayed her husband? Her husband betrayed her instead. There's what is called oath of secrecy and reporting of conflict of interest situation people sign in big companies and you must report such a case once it happens.

She(Wife) Signed oath of secrecy which she uphold, not to divulge Companys secret. It (oath of secrecy) does not apply to the husband. Her husband confiding in her, in turn blow whistle on her husband is Betrayal.

Did you reason your comments before posting it?

tollyboy5:

If he did not betray his wife he would have no case with the jury.
That's not Betrayal, it's more of exploitation.

But now he did and report himself, if he didn't the deal will be scrutinized and still get caught.

No foul play was suspected, reread the post.

DeepSight:


This was the response I made to you and it was not about me or my career -



As to the rest of your post, insults and belligerent tone, all I can say is I have heard.
Have a good day.

What has your response got to do with whether or not she was right to report
Response you call it
to a remark not addressed to you?
You are overreaching yourself and behaving like a troll
So take responsibility for whatever tone your behaviour attracts.

nairalanda1:


Well, forget about defence. In this case there is nothing to defend. The man messed up, and he knows it. Plus what he did was very very egregious

Apology accepted, and I do apologize if my comments got too pointed and abusive.

Thanks.....this what I want to see on nairaland where we argue and apologise when we go off limit...


If you know what I've learned ehn from following two of your arguments

Thanks

aribisala0:

What has your response got to do with whether or not she was right to report
Response you call it
to a remark not addressed to you?
You are overreaching yourself and behaving like a troll
So take responsibility for whatever tone your behaviour attracts.

Mo ti gbo. Epele.

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