11–20 of 79 posts
There's an important difference between the two.
For those that don't know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act was passed to prevent insider trading in Congress, but Congressmen have been quietly pushing and scaling back insider trading laws, basically rendering the law useless.
Methinks he actually committed insider trading. But when you own the City's popular basketball team, bring home a championship and bankroll citywide celebrations no jury will convict you!
Glad to see this is over for Mark. Definitely worth noting he spent far more on his lawyers to win this case than what it would have cost him to just pay the fines and have the SEC get a quick win for bullying. I think he proved a major point today in how the SEC has no transparency and if not for his money, he wouldn't have had any choice but to lay down for them. It's a broken system. Good for him!
How do you figure this was SEC bullying? Looks like a clear cut case of insider trading to me.
The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading . They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.
It's just ridiculous that Congress conducts insider trading while other people are persecuted for it.
Insider trading laws are a violation of the first amendment, as restricting what I can communicate to someone else is censorship and abridgement of free speech.
Glad to see this is over for Mark. Definitely worth noting he spent far more on his lawyers to win this case than what it would have cost him to just pay the fines and have the SEC get a quick win for bullying. I think he proved a major point today in how the SEC has no transparency and if not for his money, he wouldn't have had any choice but to lay down for them. It's a broken system. Good for him!
How do you figure this was SEC bullying? Looks like a clear cut case of insider trading to me.
Insider trading laws should be repealed. People selling shares based on nonpublic information introduces said information to the market more quickly. It's also a victimless act, a willing buyer and a willing seller decide to trade based on the information they know, with shares that were purchased without any agreement to not sell them based on the information the owner knows. It's just ridiculous that Congress condu…
Your first point is wrong as well. If insider trading were legal there would be a huge incentive for insiders to keep inside information away from the public. This would lead to slower dissemination of inside information. It would also lead to great economic collapse because no-one would trust stocks anymore.
Insider trading laws do not violate the first amendment because they do not restrict speech, but actions (i.e., trading).
The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading . They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.
I was on a jury for a trial involving an alleged dui offense and what you mention is exactly the reason we found the defendant to be not guilty.
The jury didn't say he "did not commit insider trading"; they said the government didn't prove that he committed insider trading . They didn't say he's innocent of the charges, but that he's not guilty of them. There's an important difference between the two.