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

61–70 of 79 posts

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#61

Post by rbritton »

SheepSlapper wrote: post #59
dragonwriter wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent" Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means. > They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Right. Because people are presumed innocent. The failure to overcome the burden of proof to rebut a presumption means that the presumption is true. That's what a legal presumption means . > It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal cas…

No, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", for the same reasons as posted above. "Not guilty" means we can't prove you're guilty of something, "innocent" means we CAN prove you didn't do it. "Not guilty" is not a claim to absolute knowledge, where as "innocent" is. And that's an important distinction.

"Not guilty" can also mean that the jury exercised their right to jury nullification.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#62

Post by cma »

siegecraft wrote: post #25
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.

Sort of like the Qwest CEO who was the only head of a major telecom to deny access to the phone companies in the illegal tapping scandal, and was shortly thereafter charged with insider trading (I don't know anything about the merits of the case):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#63

Post by obstacle1 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #58
SeanLuke wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point stands though: "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent". Juries in criminal trials do not determine innocence. They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Just because the government couldn't prove its claim doesn't mean the claim was false. It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal case.

> "not guilty" in the US is not the same as "innocent" Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means. > They determine whether the government was able to prove its claim of guilt. Right. Because people are presumed innocent. The failure to overcome the burden of proof to rebut a presumption means that the presumption is true. That's what a legal presumption means . > It's moot anyway: this wasn't a criminal cas…

>Yeah, it is. That's exactly what "not guilty" means.

No, it isn't. Stop attempting to slaughter language and logic. All "not guilty" means is the state of guilt could not be proven. That does NOT imply innocence.

It is completely possible for a defendant to be guilty of a crime but be found not guilty -- that is, neither innocent nor guilty -- by virtue of lack of evidence, or process error, or whatever.

Here is a professor proving you wrong [1]:

>This means that the jurors found [the defendant] not guilty; it does not mean that they found her innocent. It does not even mean that any or all of them believe she had nothing to do with the demise of her daughter. All it means is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony committed the offenses of which she was accused (other than giving false information to the police, the minor charge she was convicted of). In other words, the prosecution failed to meet the high standard to which society holds the state in criminal cases.

And here is a criminal lawyer proving you wrong [2]:

>Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty." ... A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things. It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant (I would use my client's name) is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different. A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the state has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty."

Now will you drop the unjustified arrogance?

[1] - http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-07/news/29747182_1_reason...

[2] - http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Criminal-Defense-Overv...

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#64

Post by jessaustin »

hristov wrote: post #42
baddox wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Say you are an executive of a company and learn of certain piece of inside information which will affect the stock price. Say, for example your company just got a new order that will double their profits. If insider trading were permitted you would try to keep this piece of info secret for as long as possible to give you time to buy as many shares as you can. After you buy all you can you will probably want tip off y…

Say, for example your company just got a new order that will double their profits.

This sort of info is already kept secret for as long as possible, for both contractual and commercial reasons. At least if the officers are trading on it the info is leaking out in some way. So, for this specific example, allowing insider trading will decrease volatility. (I'm not convinced that's so valuable, but it's the sort of thing many people care about.)

I can't think of any company that acts as if they care to be "viewed as being transparent and shareholder friendly", so apparently that isn't so important.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#65

Post by bsims »

In 2007 I was in the midst of uncovering a pump and dump scheme while communicating with the SEC (who were incredibly non-responsive and incompetent).

While trying to learn more about white collar crime, I uncovered a website, sharesleuth.com. The owner was writing stories on stock fraud/white collar crime, and we exchanged a few emails.

A few weeks later I found out Mark Cuban was backing him, and short selling the companies he found to be fraudulent. Cuban was doing this for two reasons: #1 To bring attention to white collar crime and #2 If the SEC wasn't going to shut down the companies, he might as well make money while doing it...inevitably bringing it back to #1. It looks like he was successful in drawing their attention.

A previous Wired article on Sharesleuth: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-10/mf_shares...

X-post from HN thread on the pump and dump I uncovered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5236372

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#66

Post by dreamdu5t »

RobAtticus wrote: post #32
dreamdu5t wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is fraud, assuming it was sold under an agreement that it should work and the seller disclosed all knowledge of problems, because the seller would be committing fraud by withholding that information.

How is that comparable to insider trading? There is no fraud involved with insider trading.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#67

Post by dreamdu5t »

hristov wrote: post #44
dreamdu5t wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I fail to see what's amoral about trading based on information that other people don't know." Seeing as how you are moving the goalposts now you probably see very clearly what is amoral about insider trading.

If it's not amoral and there is no fraud involved, then it should not be a crime.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#68

Post by malandrew »

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…

What we currently have is a market with the illusion of honesty. That's what insider trading laws are there to provide. It's not real trust between counter-parties in a market. Eliminating insider trading laws wouldn't change much, just lift that veil. If everyone participating in the market knows that people can be operating at a significant and privileged informational advantage, they will just take that into account when researching the market and executing their trading strategy. They won't stop trading, just trade differently.

It is likely that the repeal of insider trading laws would prompt a greater investment in discovering insider information and making that information known to the market faster. Firms that do nothing but specialize in getting insider information would crop up. Those in the know would eventually have to assume that their counter-parties may have the same information perhaps through the same information contact or through different ones that have the same info.

If you really play through the scenario of removing the restriction posed by insider trading laws, you'll see that things aren't really better or worse in terms of the greater good. Without insider trading laws, there is no victim since the victim knows they are playing a different game. The laws themselves are responsible for permitting victimization to occur in the first place since it implies the expectation of trust where there often isn't any.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#69

Post by mcherm »

satori99 wrote: post #41
dkl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised to find not one defense of Mark like there was in the original thread a few weeks ago, when the trial started. At that time, there were a bunch of people with very specific arguments why it wasn't insider trading. I don't remember the specifics, but I remember reading and I found them interesting.

IIRC it was to do with Cuban never having agreed to receive the information in confidence.

That's certainly how the article explained it.

Re: Jury says Cuban did not commit insider trading

#70

Post by MartinCron »

RobAtticus wrote: post #50
maxerickson wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most private car sales are just like that.

Hmm, surprising. Could have sworn you had at least some reasonable protections that you could sue if the owner knew of problems but failed to disclose them.

There are protections against outright fraud, rolling the odometer back or not disclosing a rebuild title.

If the engine is about to burst, caveat emptor.

Post reply on HN