Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

miamiherald.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#21

Post by dreamdu5t »

hristov wrote: post #18
dreamdu5t wrote: post #16

Insider trading laws should be repealed.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…

It is not a victim-less act. The person that goes into a transaction without knowing insider information usually believes they were cheated. Quite rightfully so. 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…

Cheated of what? Owning a share does not entitle you to profit.

I fail to see what's amoral about trading based on information that other people don't know. There are no two people who know the exact same things. All trade is based on asymmetric information.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#22

Post by dmazin »

shreyansj wrote: post #14
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure this was SEC bullying? Looks like a clear cut case of insider trading to me.

How do you figure this is clear cut case of insider trading. What's your evidence to reach that verdict, that the jury apparently failed to see?

The evidence is the testimony that Cuban was told by the CEO about the offering. The jury needed to believe it beyond reasonable doubt, but we don't need to because as individuals, our tolerance for coincidence is much lower than it is for juries.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#24

Post by beambot »

rosser wrote: post #11

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.

Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#25

Post by siegecraft »

curiouslurker wrote: post #3

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!

October 17, 2008 - Mark Cuban announces bailoutsleuth.com November 17, 2008 - SEC charges announced

Connection, coincidence, or a little of both? I don't believe that Cuban is innocent per se, but I also don't believe that his prosecution wasn't politically motivated.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#26

Post by staunch »

dmazin wrote: post #22
shreyansj wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you figure this is clear cut case of insider trading. What's your evidence to reach that verdict, that the jury apparently failed to see?

The evidence is the testimony that Cuban was told by the CEO about the offering. The jury needed to believe it beyond reasonable doubt, but we don't need to because as individuals, our tolerance for coincidence is much lower than it is for juries.

Actually, since this is civil I think the bar is lower than in a criminal case. They probably only needed to prove that he's guilty based on the "preponderance of the evidence". Essentially that it's more likely he did it than he did not do it.

Just knowing the timing alone would suggest a greater than 50% chance of him being guilty to me. I'd convict him in 5 minutes.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#27

Post by jtreminio »

rosser wrote: post #11

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.

Except that in America people are innocent until proven guilty.

In the eyes of the law, he is innocent.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#28

Post by dragonwriter »

beambot wrote: post #24
rosser wrote: post #11

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.

Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".

> Can a jury ever find a defendant "innocent"? I thought the only two options were "guilty" and "not guilty".

"innocent" = "not guilty". Guilt is a binary state.

EDIT: Though, as this was a civil case, neither "guilty" nor "not guilty" were possible results.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#29

Post by Zigurd »

ars wrote: post #7

And people wonder why the government never brought anyone to trial for the recent financial collapse. I don't know anything about Mark Cuban, but loosing this case will certainly demoralize them. It's really really hard to convict people and they eventually stop trying.

It's substantially different in that some derivatives are equivalent to insurance, but the entities writing those contracts do not meet capital requirements for insurance.

The reason there are capital requirements for insurers is that, without them, you can get "free money" by selling insurance contracts that are backed by nothing. Doing that under another name is just as fraudulent.

Especially in the case of insurers writing such contracts, you don't have to take witness' word for the fact they were evading capital requirements. The contracts and available capital make the whole case.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#30

Post by csense »

hristov wrote: post #8

He got off because it was ultimately a question of his word against the word some other guy. And the other guy had an axe to grind. And Cuban is very popular in Dallas, being the owner of the local basketball team. So the jury decided there is not enough evidence to indict. But if I were Cuban I would not complain to loudly about being hounded by the SEC. Fact of the matter is his selling right before the PIPE was an…

> the jury decided there is not enough evidence to indict.

I think you mean "convict," not "indict." An indictment, decided by a grand jury in the United States, is basically an accusation, and it happens before a trial. A conviction is what happens with a trial jury or petit jury.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indict#United_States

Post reply on HN