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

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#31

Post by gamblor956 »

jtreminio wrote: post #27
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.

No, in the eyes of the law, he is "not guilty." Innocence is a factual finding which has the same burden of proof as guilt because it is a definitive finding that the defendant did not commit the crime charged.

Judges admonish juries that people are "innocent until proven guilty" becaues most jurors aren't sophisticated enough to make the distinction.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#32

Post by RobAtticus »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #21
hristov wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Should I be allowed to sell you a car that's a lemon just because you cannot see that? If I know the engine is about to die, but you test drive it and it seems fine, is that really right?

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#33

Post by gamblor956 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #28
beambot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state.

Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged.

Not guilty = the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged

Innocent = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., factual impossibility) that the defendant did not commit the crime alleged.

It is exceedingly rare for a jury to make a finding of innocence since (a) few prosecutors will agree to a jury instruction allowing this finding, and (b) if there is the necessary evidence to prove innocence, the judge will throw out the related charges before the decision gets to the jury. If the judge throws out the charge, whether the judge will further make a finding of innocence depends on the defendant--usually the defendant must move the court for such a finding and few do. However, in some jurisdictions judges have the leeway to make that finding without a motion by the defendant.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#34

Post by rverghes »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #10
jasonwilk wrote: post #4

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.

This is a pretty good overview of the case for Cuban:

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20...

Apparently, simply owning stock is not enough to make you an "insider". You have to be a fiduciary (i.e. be an officer, or a controlling shareholder, or on the board, or similar), or owe a fiduciary duty to the company.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#35

Post by ElChacal »

untog wrote: post #19
stevesearer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How did that feel? I ask the question very genuinely. It sounds as if you suspected the accused was guilty, but that the evidence did not back it up. How did you feel about letting him go?

What is your point and how is that relevant?

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#36

Post by tedunangst »

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?

It's possible for an action to look like clear cut insider trading, but not be. I don't it's SEC bullying for them to investigate things that look like clear cut insider trading. That's why we have the trial, after all, to determine if the action is what it looked like.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#37

Post by baddox »

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.

It's an invented difference that has no observable (as in, non-semantic) manifestations. As far as his legal treatment from here forward, he "did not commit insider trading" to the same extent that my grandmother (who has done no trading whatsoever and has never been accused of such) "did not commit insider trading."

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#38

Post by baddox »

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…

> If insider trading were legal there would be a huge incentive for insiders to keep inside information away from the public.

Could you explain this claim?

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

gamblor956 wrote: post #33
dragonwriter wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state. Guilty = beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged. Not guilty = the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime alleged Innocent = beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., factual impossibility) that the defendant did not commit the crime alleged. It is exceedingly rare for…

> Guilt is a binary state, but a jury's finding of guilt is a trinary state.

Except in the case of things like the Scottish three-verdict system (which doesn't follow the conditions that you lay out), this is generally not true.

Particularly, in the US, generally "guilty" and "not guilty" are the only possible verdicts in most criminal cases (there are certain cases where "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but mentally ill" are also available), and there is no verdict that requires proof of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#40

Post by hristov »

csense wrote: post #30
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

You are right. I know the distinction but for some reason I thought this was a grand jury.
Post reply on HN