₦airaland Forum

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.

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.

JASONjnr:
Lol..


When Buhari took over and made life even harder for us from the soft life of PDP that we used to enjoyed. We endured and kept quiet. At some point, we tried to protest and Tinubu used his thighs to make a mess out of the protest. The entire nort8acted like they were enjoying the lifestyle then. After all, their religion forbids them to challenge their leaders.


Today, the North are challenging a president, simple because, he's not a Northerner.


Believe me, whether we will have no food to eat. This country will exist.

IBB came out to say that he's not in support of any plan of military take over. Apparently, the North wants to use military to take back power.


See, the North should allow Tinubu to finish his regime. After all we allowed their incompetent Buhari to finish his regime.

We endured and we kept enduring Buhari and a certain cabal that would use the president signature to sign contracts and other confidential documents, without the olodo knowing.

N200 to N700 is different from N700 to N2000.

aribisala0:
I am not touchy
I am not interested in going down that road with you and already made it clear so what is your problem?

Fair enough. That's cool.

aribisala0:
Using a proxy sounds easy in theory but it is not in practice

In this case he traded with nearly 3 million.
So how will be transfer the money without detection
Will the proxy use their own money? 3 million from where
Finally the issue of TRUSTED is not that straightforward
People are.People
In summary it sounds easy on paper but not realistic to me
Maybe he should have been less greedy and gone for a much smaller profit like 50 to 100K
As the Yoruba say die to ninu nkan oninkan

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.

aribisala0:
Please do not make any submissions to me
I am not interested in that game
You are free to believe what you like

MNPI is understood by those who have to

Game ke? I am not playing any game. It appears you are still touchy on this matter. I thought we had progressed beyond that.

It's okay, no worries.
Have a good day.

aribisala0:
From a trading perspective. Yes I was wondering when we should get to this part of the discussion
How to chop and clean mouth

I taya for some people oh. He was smart enough to quickly take advantage but not smart enough to use a proxy. Haba.

But now that we are away from strict law and morals, this is why I fear very strict people with high integrity. They can't negotiate a messy situation. I mean, as husband and wife how is there no possibility of putting heads together and saying, ah, na yawa be this oh, how we fit organize ourselves to escape. I mean, just put heads together. But for that very strict person of high integrity such a conversation may be impossible.

I personally feel that marriages should be stronger than that even where one or both parties may have messed up.

aribisala0:
You are entitled to your opinion
The words are clear
Trading with information not available to the public
You can interpret it how you like

Here is how the US SEC defines Illegal Insider Trading -

"Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, on the basis of material, nonpublic information about the security."

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/insider-trading

Please note the words "in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence."

On the basis of that I humbly submit that that relationship must exist first.

Now, leaving both law and morals aside. If one were to be Machiavellian.

That man should have just used one of many possible trustworthy proxy arrangements and thereafter sealed his lips forever.

aribisala0:
I have already addressed this in my penultimate post
I think we are also in agreement that there is probably no limit to what can be argued in court
However to my understanding it does not matter how the information is got what matters is that
The information is not available to the public and the court is convinced that the accused knew or ought to know that

Yes I saw your post on that. I have to disagree though, as I feel that is too exacting. The example of even overhearing something in an airport seems extreme to me.

aribisala0:
Now a key point to make here is what constitutes criminality or what is prohibited?

Trading in the stocks of a company whilst in possession of information not available to the public
Doing so will constitute a criminal offence.
Was that the case here and did the man know that he should not have done this?

Surely there can be a little nuance to things. Because if the definition is strictly as you put it, and if it can admit of no exceptions, then there will be problematic scenarios. Let us for just a moment put aside this present case and apply your definition strictly.

Would it then be the case that anyone who accidentally comes across such information is precluded from investing in the concerned company.

So to make it clear, I am walking down the corridor of an office I visited and overhear something interesting regarding a company. Am I therefore barred from investing in that company since what I have overheard is not available to the public.

Isolate this example for itself and weigh it against your definition of insider trading. Mind you, your definition doesn't even take any note of the word "insider."

Please if you find this post inappropriate in that you were speaking to someone else, kindly ignore me. I only chip in as I believe we are now in the clear.

@ Thierryjay what do you make of Pelosi's case.

aribisala0:
No it is not but you cannot force me to discuss law with you
I am not interested in any artificial argumentation



if you quote it should be about what you quoted
especially when you quote and start by saying
. Something totally irrelevant to what you quoted
He said she was wrong to have reported him I questioned that and you quoted to say what quite frankly was totally irrelevant to that conversation.
This you were trolling and being a nuisance

Very well. I didn't realize that I came across that way and tender my unreserved apologies.

aribisala0:
What has your response got to do with whether or not she was right to report
Response you call it
to a remark not addressed to you?
You are overreaching yourself and behaving like a troll
So take responsibility for whatever tone your behaviour attracts.

Mo ti gbo. Epele.

PS: The discussion as I understand it is not limited to that question alone.

aribisala0:
I did not speak to you. You are beginning to constitute a nuisance and I will change it for you
You quoted me several times when I addressed others the last one I corrected your nonsense but you did not respond . You went into a biography about how you became a SAN when the issue was a moral point about the wife being wrong to report him. I was not speaking to you then but you butted I in rudely to share your biography
Since you did not respond in my mind I am done with you

You claim to be a lawyer ,with atrocious English and seem to be looking for a partner in juvenile and endless argument about the law in this case. I am not interested. .That is a settled matter now

This was the response I made to you and it was not about me or my career -

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.

As to the rest of your post, insults and belligerent tone, all I can say is I have heard.
Have a good day.

matify83:
Exactly what the whole argument raging on this topic is all about.

Nancy pelosi had privileged information.


The husband by some stroke of luck invested and sold stocks in some company.

Coincidentally, that company was the same one Nancy had privileged information on.

SEC and FBI couldn't by virtue of marriage or closeness implicate Nancy of divulging privileged secrets to the husband.


Back to our case, if the man has kept mum about where he sourced the info. For his deal, it was left for SEC or the FBI to do their investigation and prove her culpability.

FYI nairalanda1 , Twoods, aribisala0

aribisala0:
You cannot wake a person pretending to be asleep
Let us.say it was a US military secret. Even without any conspiracy whatsoever just negligently allowing that to fall to enemies can attract life imprisonment
This even applies to the President and how he handles classified documents
Imagine a person claiming to be a lawyer not grasping a basic concept like criminal negligence

I cant see the negligence here. Epele o.
And secondly - you seem to assume that once any information is heard from you, you must have been negligent. For heavens sake, your lack of rigor is tiresome.

ThierryJay:
It is actually a simple straightforward case which is why the offender has made a plea deal and does not even want it to get to trial. Or you think he isnt aware if he had a good chance?

There could be any number of undisclosed and non-obvious reasons for that.

The issue with your assumptions is that they are wrong. In that sector in the US, she does not have to disclose or conspire with her husband before she becomes culpable. She is culpable because she was negligent in allowing confidential info to leak to a spouse.

I am sorry but I still fail to see her negligence. And even if I have it mixed up between metres or feet, she, as far it it appears on the surface, was in a home office, presumably a separate room. If she has not herself utilized that inforamtion and someone else has, to hold her culpable you would need to show that she was in on it.

The only argument I can accept in this regard would be the one which says, well she had to report it once she knew. That works fair enough - from a disclosure point of view and conflict of interest. However the mere fact of her husband investing does not create a criminal culpability on her part if she did nothing to divulge the information to him.

Imagine someone strolling in public in present day Nigeria with wads of dollar notes visible from his pocket and gets robbed. 100% of the time, the person gets blamed for inviting the crime and not only the robbers.

This is the second strange analogy you are making. Again, not apples for apples.

On your second assumption, you have forgotten that the man still has to prove to the court without an iota of doubt that he got the information from elsewhere. Pray tell, how would he demonstrate that in this instance when every lie of his would be tested?

And yet again, it is not an assumption. For heavens sake we are told how he got the information. Thus I am not assuming he got it elsewhere. I am not making any such statement as a fact. I am posing a question to you based on an imaginary scenario in order to interrogate the specific question as to if the mere fact of marriage to her - if taken by itself precludes him from investing in a company which her employer is considering either buying or investing in - if he were to come across that information by accident.

It is a hypothetical question to interrogate the basis of guilt. Twoods did not understand this, and it has missed you too.
Perhaps there is something wrong with my communication style.

nairalanda1:
Yes because there was no evidence he did insider trading. I don't like Pelosi, but no evidence, nothing

In this case the evidence was blatant

Plus there are many big american men who have gone to jail for the same crime.

What evidence was blatant if not for their confessions?

The difference here is the Pelosi's have made no confessions and Nancy being the baddie agbalagba she is, stands strong in her position that she shares no info with her husband. Can you prove she is not lying - a question you asked above in this case, if the woman were to deny knowledge.

nairalanda1:
The woman was not mumu. She was wise.

This one no be simp or woman vs man matter..the thing is, once the man told the woman, she had no choice but to report.

Because the SEC would have found out eventually, and those ones no dey hear 'i didn't know'.

Infact if she kept quiet and the sec found out from the records, she would get a heavier jail sentence than the husband.

America is a very legalistic country. A country where if you jump traffic light, na court straight

Someone above brought up the case of Nancy Pelosi and her husband.
What do you say on that?

https://africa.businessinsider.com/politics/nancy-pelosis-husband-bought-at-least-dollar1-million-in-alphabet-stock-days-before/988lvdv

nairalanda1:
Well it won't have flown under the radar for long.

One american sportsman was jailed in 2019 for a similar offences committed in 2014. The wheels of justice turn slowly but they turn

Surely you are not suggesting the US has a perfect system whereby every crime is always eventually found out?

ThierryJay:
For someone who has claimed to head legal multinational positions, your whataboutism on this issue is draining.

Those analogies are not whataboutism.

And please I am tired of this reference to my profession in such a manner. I only mentioned it because someone was suggesting I am ignorant of the entire subject. I didn't mean to use it as any leverage. You can assess my arguments commonsensically please, forget I am a lawyer.

I have frankly tried to follow your line of argument from page 2 even from a devil's advocate POV but it still doesnt hold water.

Even in Nigeria, complicity on conflict of interest issues such as this does not have to be deliberate. I have worked in a big 4 firm here and we [quote]were trained that you can be implicated on account of negligence where you dont exercise enough due care especially as it relates to spouses and close family members.

Employees involved in sensitive deals are trained to be aware of their environment where they discuss confidential info and if there's risk of breach, they are advised to postpone or use another location. So the excuse of the wife not knowing holds no water.

She did exercise care - unless I read wrongly, she was in a home office twenty metres away from him.

Also, the excuse that the man could have gotten the info from another source is laughable in court in light of overwhelming evidence of closeness to the wife involved in the deal.

It is not an excuse - it was an analogy meant to test the distinctions involved. To be clear, I am testing the basis of guilt and trying to see exactly where it stands - on the fact of marriage, or the actual means of acquiring the information. It is important that both are carefully delineated to see that each holds water on its own before we can put them together to draw a conclusion, and that is what that analogy was designed to do.

This seems to have missed you just as it missed omniscient Twoods.

Your argument is akin to a scenario where someone who has no Rolex watch comes to stay with you that has the watch in your house for a day and next day your Rolex is missing and you find it on his wrist. And in defence he claims he could have gotten it from anywhere. Ridiculous innit?

I cant see how this is apples for apples.

nairalanda1:
Ask Ivan Boesky.

America is not Nigeria.

Using a different case, the fifa corruption scandal started when an American investigator noticed someone was buying art at a high rate and got suspicious..because money laundering

Oga, I have not said things dont get discovered. I have said the authorities are not omniscient and things fly under the radar even in the most sophisticated economies.

Is this false please?

TWoods:
The main thrust of your "arguments" has simply been "I'm a lawyer and I'm smart". Nothing of substance. As someone said, quite draining. It would have been fun to trade shoulda woulda arguments but this is not the case. This is as clear-cut as it gets. Insider trading is a crime. I would have had a better opinion of you if you were willing to take up his appeal and put your legal theories to the test. But of course, we all know everyone is a lion online and a mouse off it.

Good brother, I do not live for your opinion of me. Mine of you is not so great either - seeing as you could not spot an analogy or dont even know what an analogy is. But then again - you should not live for my opinion of you either.

aribisala0:
How is she wrong please make it make sense?

Let me understand

If a husband confesses to his wife that he has sexually molested their daughter should she report him yes or no?

They are both criminal offences
In Both cases if she does not report she will go to prison
But in this case ,in America and will even go to prison for longer for the insider trading

So I want to understand what she did wrong

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.

nairalanda1:
And a lot of the big men get caught over there.

Even if everyone kept quiet, the SEC regularly scrutinizes records of all financial transactions in selling of shares. The man would have soon been flagged up, and madam would have been also in the hot seat.

Ivan Boesky, once a big man, was caught because of suspicious financial records.No one reported him

This your assumption that the SEC is omniscient and spots everything eventually is just not the case. Much flies under the radar in every country of the world, no matter how sophisticated the system.

TWoods:
This is just unserious high fallutin nonsense. You really arent that smart.

There are no "deep and thoughtful probes into the reasoning" here at all. The law is crystal clear. The dude traded on nonpublic information. This is a crime, regardless of how he found out. He has since pled guilty... all you're saying has zero relevance to the case and is designed to give a flattering opinion of your own intellect, which i find to be surprisingly thin.

Well you are entitled to your opinion - but for one who could not distinguish between an obvious analogy and a statement of fact, I will not be too worried about your assessment of me.

aribisala0:
Even a bad defence lawyer will have something to say
Are you not saying something?

Lol.

But seriously, anyone who thinks in the way you lot are thinking - namely that there could be no conceivable defense - is simply not creative.

TWoods:
This case never made it to trial, he signed a plea deal. Pay attention dude. You've spent a lot of time shouting about your legal knowledge, yet do not understand the basics of this case.

I am aware it never went to trial and I would be surprised if you think that a trial is the only place where lawyers give counsel.

TWoods:
This is a worthless non-argument... and it's clear you are simply typing words to sound smart and save face. As others have pointed out here... he has been convicted of this crime by the Justice Department. You are free to go argue with their lawyers, or better... take his case to the appellate court.

Well its obvious you have chosen to side step the simple questions I posed to you, as well as the careful analogies I put up which were directed at eliciting a deep and thoughtful probe into the reasoning behind both the law and the facts as applied. Not surprising, since you could mistake an analogy for statement of fact in your other riposte.

Its ok, perhaps the conversation is not a useful one.
Thanks for your time.

TWoods:
He has already been convicted by the Feds, so unless you are alleging ineffective counsel... i would surmise that your claims would not have held up in court either. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/insider-trading-husband-illegally-profits-17m-after-using-wifes-private-company

Yes, ineffectual counsel is where I am headed. Weak, not thorough and thoughtful enough. I also believe that the woman ought to have sought counsel before reporting anything (I may have missed it if she did).

nairalanda1:
Well, forget about defence. In this case there is nothing to defend. The man messed up, and he knows it. Plus what he did was very very egregious

What is the job of a lawyer if not to help people who have messed up?

Apology accepted, and I do apologize if my comments got too pointed and abusive.

Thank you.

TWoods:
For a lawyer who allegedly draws up conflict of interest policies, i find your line of argument seriously lacking.

1. Whether she is a manager or director is an unserious irrelevancy (my company uses "directorships" as a catchall for senior management roles - including plant directors, senior managers, VPs, presidents etc.). His wife is described as "associate manager in mergers and acquisitions". This means she is in a senior role intimately involved in the merger.

I did say myself it was an irrelevancy. There is a reason I mentioned it though and it has to do with some of the responsibilities of board members. But we can let this go, I had said ahead it was an irrelevancy, and specifically sought your permission or pardon to still say.

2. That he randomly made that investment without knowledge of the impending merger announcement is laughable. First, he told his wife how he obtained that information. We don't have to guess at all. Second, it would have been easy to figure out this was likely the first time he bought shares of that company... and that these shares were purchased within days of the merger and sold almost immediately. The only person who would have known to buy shares of such an obscure party has to be intimately aware of the impending merger.

Jesus, how could it miss you that I did not say he randomly made that investment? I was drawing a hypothetical scenario (an imaginary scenario) as a tool in thought development. Could it be that you are unacquainted with this method of thought development?

Page 6 of the BP conflict of interest page - You may not use or share bpES information, assets or resources for your own or third parties’ benefit;

She was required to keep that information from even her own husband. That is the rule in my company. Her husband finding out was an error on her part.

And she did not divulge the information to her husband, so what on Earth are you on about, my good man?

That her husband overhead accidentally is not an excuse in law, he had no right to act on that information...

I think this is debatable.

And in that regard I might offer another thought development analogy. Please dont goof again and presume I am saying it is what happened. Here goes - what if he came across that information legitimately in the normal course of his own business? Would he still then be barred from making that investment?

Again, there is a reason for this question, so be careful - it is targeted at the specific question as to how he came about the information and to dissect it as separate from the fact that he is married to that particular employee.

the fact that he has since been convicted makes that case, regardless of your groundless claims.

It doesn't. Courts and Regulators can be wrong. Law is an extremely philosophical discipline and sometimes it takes very painstaking philosophical analysis of the rationale of a law (jurisprudence) to convince a court that it has been wrong. And this is why you have the appellate system.