Gained 1.5 million. Lost 2.6 plus two years in prison and his wife's job. Not a great trade.
Could have bought a few houses around town and made more money.
Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
11–20 of 243 posts
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article > As part of the plea agreement, Bohra’s wife will not face criminal charges. Bohra’s wife is no longer employed at Amazon.
I understand the plea deal, but why. I am assuming they had evidence she gave him the data. Why let her off?
May be they would have to risk a trial to convict both but he would plea guilty to protect his wife. If the state believes he was the most responsible then they may judge a guaranteed conviction without the cost of trial to be worth it.
The wife (and family) lost 2.6 million, plus her job, and the husband - so it's not like she got away with something, just avoided the worst of the punishment.
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#13[deleted]
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#14How do they prove this? A lot of people play earnings. Amazon is not an obscure stock. In fact, making an earnings play on Amazon is probably one of the more reasonable safer things to do compared to what the world is up to now days.
Hard to guess right 11 times in a row.
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#15How do they prove this? A lot of people play earnings. Amazon is not an obscure stock. In fact, making an earnings play on Amazon is probably one of the more reasonable safer things to do compared to what the world is up to now days.
his wife would have been in a black out period where she's not allowed to be trading Amazon stock if she works there. i'm not sure if the blackouts specifically applies to the husband, but him doing this 11 times right before an earning call? its kinda blatant
edit: Blackouts include the employee and all family members. You can not trade during blackout periods.
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#16How do they prove this? A lot of people play earnings. Amazon is not an obscure stock. In fact, making an earnings play on Amazon is probably one of the more reasonable safer things to do compared to what the world is up to now days.
If you only do it for one stock, do it for every earnings, and have a win rate of 100%, that becomes pretty obvious.
Also, by the way, they were legally not allowed to trade during those times at all, due to her specific job and the blackout period that cme with.
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#17>he obtained from his wife, an Amazon finance employee, to place trades in Amazon stock–making a profit of $1,428,264 >Bohra engaged in illegal insider trading in advance of 11 straight earnings announcements.” >He and his family members have paid $2,652,899 in disgorgement, interest and penalties. And 26 months in prison! This is why if you're going to do any kind of trading yourself -- never touch the company you w…
How did his wife get no prison time?
They can't arrest a husband and wife for the same crime.
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#18How do they prove this? A lot of people play earnings. Amazon is not an obscure stock. In fact, making an earnings play on Amazon is probably one of the more reasonable safer things to do compared to what the world is up to now days.
He pleaded guilty so it doesn’t matter in this case
Re: Husband of Amazon employee sentenced to prison for insider trading Amazon stock
#19How do they prove this? A lot of people play earnings. Amazon is not an obscure stock. In fact, making an earnings play on Amazon is probably one of the more reasonable safer things to do compared to what the world is up to now days.
He and the wife pleaded guilty, so presumably they had enough proof. From the article it seems she had material access to finance data and was under obligation to not do trades so they would just need to prove he spoke with her about it.