DeepSight:


Yeah, I hear you. I guess "wisdom is profitable to direct" as the good book says.

But e sure me die say people plenty wey dey roll with deals like that all the time.

talk2hb1:

Yet she is a betrayal

talk2hb1:

That's Espionage case, Mumu.

fregeneh:
hmmm! Nigrians i ..

PlanetZero:


Espionage? Or fraudster. You be fraudster

Don't worry your own day is coming. You will be caught

descarado:

And u and her will not be found out?
Childish talk.

spartachico:
And you think relocation is a sin, mumu talk, or you think just because he confessed doesnt mean othet employee or employee families at the firm didnt try their luck too

matify83:
What could have happened if she hadn't reported the case to bp authority leading to her sack?

Why was she against the husband's success even though she didn't willfully give out ''insider secrets'' to her husband?

This kind of husband go sabi do amebo. Must you explain how you came about privileged information that made you a millionaire?
Who ask you?

This case get as e be.

MVLOX:


Wetin we do na.....

Obierika:


Sometimes it's best to just let sleeping dogs lie.

She reported to her bosses and still go fired and now her husband will be prosecuted meaning her family will use most of it's saving to pay lawyers for his defence

Tobest94:
So why did the mumu woman report? Your husband just made money and he even said he doesn’t want you to work long hours again that’s why. Like why are some women so dumb and selfish?

nairalanda1:


Because the woman no wan spend time for prision alongside her husband.

Her husband did a serious crime. If she had not reported when she did, but kept quiet...and the SEC found out either by looking at their records, or by the IRS flagging funny financials in their tax report, she would have been in soup as well.

SO, she reported. If not, dem go come for am to. And they won't take 'I did not know' as valid defence.

Tobest94:
na lie. He husband only need to be smart by insisting the company has been on his watch list since and he bought the shares without any information from anybody. Just deny any accusation and let them come with evidence. He shouldn’t have sold too quick tho

MVLOX:
The husband self no sharp.... That kind thing Na croonies you go use so that nothing can be traced to you

matify83:
What could have happened if she hadn't reported the case to bp authority leading to her sack?

Why was she against the husband's success even though she didn't willfully give out ''insider secrets'' to her husband?

This kind of husband go sabi do amebo. Must you explain how you came about privileged information that made you a millionaire?
Who ask you?

This case get as e be.

immortalcrown:
Gagantuan gaga!

Self-centred commenters below claim the woman worked against her husband's success. Will your judgement be the same if you are the woman's employer? Will you say the same thing if your neighbour becomes like the man against you and a company you work for? So, because he married her makes it right for him to abuse the conjugal trust and spy on the wife's employer? Life is about the golden rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Put yourself in the company's shoes. You people suffer from split personality disorder. Being ethical is a crime to you when it doesn't favour your interest.

This excerpt from the post clearly shows why and how the man's action is wrong. Working remotely is very good but self-centred people want to abuse it.

The man betrayed his wife's trust. He makes her regret not treating him like an outsider or a stranger in the marriage.

I sincerely condemn his action. The wife felt safe in the presence of her husband but later got disappointed in him.

DeepSight:


I honestly think you guys have over simplified this issue and there are layers of rationale that you are simply skipping. It bears repeating that she did not disclose the information to her husband. It bears repeating that he is not an insider - and in this regard it bears repeating that the question as to their marriage, relationship, proximity, et all, only arises if she disclosed to him or conspired with him. Once that is not the case, an argument can be made that this does not meet the test of insider trading. Because you would have to begin to show that even where one comes across information accidentally or randomly, one cannot invest based on that, as a non-insider. Several things bear repeating here which you are glossing over. This is why I have painstakingly tried to delineate and draw lines between the fact of the marriage and how the information was procured. This is why I have tried to give analogies to split the issues. But Mr. Twoods and others say I am speaking grammar.

Oh well. Perhaps I am. Or perhaps they simply dont think as lawyers are trained to think.

PS: I am not an American Lawyer. I am a Nigerian, Common Law Lawyer. So I readily admit I do not know all American laws. I will readily raise up my hands and say, thank you for schooling me if someone comes along and shows me an American law that says you cannot invest in any company which may be invested in or taken over by a company which a relative of yours is presently working in, if you came across that information accidentally. And in the absence of such a law, then its something that has to be reasoned out jurisprudentially. What is jurisprudence? It simply means the philosophy behind the law. And that is why I have been raising analogies.

But oh well.

TWoods:


I wish you had said this earlier, I would not have bothered to engage you at all. However, I should have spotted that when you misused the 5th amendment.

DeepSight:


Maybe you should have read my words more carefully. I didnt present it as some defense. My exact words were that it could be "played in interesting directions." This is the third time you have shown a lack of attention to words while sounding omniscient. I think you presume too much.

And what is the Fifth Amendment here if not protection against self-incrimination. How you can claim that that cannot be spun in interesting directions in a matter like this is beyond me.

Look, enjoy.
I still can't be fluffed by one who miscontrues an example as a statement of fact. You fail to grasp even the most elementary things.

TWoods:


This is more idiocy from you frankly. You're a Nigerian lawyer with zero experience in US law... and here you are, pontificating with a lot of English words but saying nothing of substance.

First, the 5th Amendment goes beyond just protection against self-incrimination. Second, it has zero relevance in this matter. The wife was obligated to report once her husband made her aware of his federal crime. She could claim the 5th amendment and then spend the next 20 years in prison once it was proven she was aware of what her husband did.

Let me repeat what others have said that seems to not penetrate your bubble of misguided self-importance... there are zero "interesting directions" this could have played. First, you are NOT a US lawyer, and cannot for the life of me understand why you think you are more knowledgeable than the US Justice Department and his defense lawyer. Second, he confessed to his wife and made a plea deal. There are no avenues left when you voluntarily plead guilty to a crime. Just so you are aware, the conviction rate for federal prosecutors here is >90%. It would be nice to not have those who have no literacy in US law continuously making a fool of themselves. Stick to Nigerian law... thanks.

talk2hb1:

If you don’t want to be unfortunate in life to your 25th generation, be careful.

DeepSight:


Just look at the bold. Who would imagine that one has been talking about what can be done after he has confessed and done a plea deal. Clearly one has since been talking about all options which would have been available from the get go, pre confession, pre deal. This conversation could not be read any other way save by a re.tard.

You huff and puff but are beyond shallow. You have no sense of nuance, subtlety and fine detail whatsoever. You repeatedly misunderstand what is being said in a most embarrassing way: it is painful to watch.

One has tried to be most gentlemanly to you, but its useless. You are simply vacant.

If you don't know it, American law is rooted in the same English Common law as Nigerian law, and I have rendered legal advise in over 40 countries including places as far away as Russia, the UK and the UAE.

You are dense. I have nothing more to say to you. Good night.

DeepSight:


Just look at the bold. Who would imagine that one has been talking about what can be done after he has confessed and done a plea deal. Clearly one has since been talking about all options which would have been available from the get go, pre confession, pre deal. This conversation could not be read any other way save by a re.tard.

You huff and puff but are beyond shallow. You have no sense of nuance, subtlety and fine detail whatsoever. You repeatedly misunderstand what is being said in a most embarrassing way: it is painful to watch.

One has tried to be most gentlemanly to you, but its useless. You are simply vacant.

If you don't know it, American law is rooted in the same English Common law as Nigerian law, and I have rendered legal advise in over 40 countries including places as far away as Russia, the UK and the UAE.

You are dense. I have nothing more to say to you. Good night.

TWoods:


What's dumb about this is that it is simply a list of facesaving insults—nothing of substance. At no point do you point to something I said that was wrong... I provided clear arguments as to why you were wrong... and you devolved into nonsequiturs and ad hominem, like a child. quite clearly you were not qualified to render an opinion on this case... but you pretended you knew it all. You repeatedly remind us all that you've "rendered legal advice in over 40 countries"... as if that qualifies you as an expert in US law. The typical Nigerian mentality. A shame.