₦airaland Forum

nairalanda1:
Well there is no defence here, as the man has pled guilty anyway.

Indeed correct. I am imagining a scenario where one had to present a defense.

Look my friend, I have been in very tight positions in terms of cases before, and I have sat at war room meetings for complex and seemingly impossible cases and one thing I have learned in my over twenty years at the bar is that a creative lawyer who thinks out of the box can come up with unbelievable results even in seemingly impossible cases.

Someone said I insulted you. Well, I tender my apologies. I was mildly irritated at your presumptions.

aribisala0:
As an investor in the stock market
His antecedents as a trader will convince a jury whether he has previously invested in that scale of manner
He is said to have made 70% profit .and made $1.86 million That means he ones close to 3 million.
As a jury member I would be very interested in his previous investment history and success.

As a jury member you will be perfectly entitled to look at all those.

This does not mean that at the level of a trial a good defense lawyer will have nothing to say.

TWoods:
I'm sorry... but this is English language. You have no idea how this works and why she HAD to report her husband. It was either that or going to prison herself. You've insulted someone else here severally while having zero clue yourself. I fill out these conflict of interest forms myself every year. I have to verify that my direct reports do not have a conflict of interest annually... either based on spouse, family, or best friends.

Well if you have filled out Conflict of Interest Forms they were based on policies prepared by someone who occupied the sorts of positions I have occupied. As Head of Legal and Compliance in several multinationals.

Calm down and walk with me, there are reasons why I raise these questions.

Please note that I am speaking here as a competitive and adversarial lawyer. In other words, I am testing what arguments will stand if I was required to present a defensive case.

As to the person you said I insulted, well, he spoke very derogatorily to me as well.

TWoods:
Please read the BP conflict of interest policy here - https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/bp-trading-and-shipping/documents/regulatory-resource-centre/europe/english/bpes-conflict-of-interest.pdf

Pay attention to page 6, last bullet on section 4 - Must avoid or disclose investments, including known investments of a close relative or person with whom you have a close relationship, that may create a conflict of interest

I suggest you read the entire document before making further comments. The 5th amendment does not apply here.

I don't think I need to read it to guess what's in there. I have been a Compliance Head for several multinationals and I have drawn up such policies myself.

Please see my post above.

TWoods:
1. Does not matter. He found out ONLY because of his proximity to her.

A person not married to her could also have such proximity.

2. He technically is... he is married to a senior director in charge of the merger discussions.

I don't want to quibble about irrelevancies but permit me to say the article called her a manager not a director. There is a difference and it has implications.

However the question of being married is what you have raised. Let me frame this in a strange manner. Let's assume that while that marriage was in place, he nevertheless randomly made that investment without overhearing anything from his wife.

Again, I ask that you dwell carefully on this. Because what I am trying to do here is call into question the objection on the grounds of his marriage alone. Thus, I am questioning if the marriage taken alone would render his investment illegal.

The reason I am asking this is because I would seek to dispute the further ground that he got the information from her illegally, on the grounds that it was accidental. She did not divulge. Thus there was no conspiracy.

3. The stranger isn't related to her (and she does not personally benefit from any profit made)... and thus she has no obligation to report a stranger as a conflict of interest. She is compelled to do that for her husband.

Has it occurred to you that a person not married to her could equally overhear and profit by making the exact same investment. Such as a friend, or heck a nanny.

tochez24:
You're missing something bro...

I'm not justifying a bad thing or what the man did, I'm just opening your eyes to the other side of the coin⚠️

Remember I began my comment by condemning what the man did♂️

But with all said, life is always black and white you know, it will never be plain white only... Poor people will always keep rules while rich people will always bypass them.

It's what it's⚠️

He seems only able to think in black and white and obviously only sees things at surface value. He can't interrogate anything deeply or strategically and he can't query anything that is offered at face value. He is also likely one who will accept anything a person in a position of authority says without question. If he were a judge, he will only ever apply the literal rule of interpretation and forget that there also exist the golden rule and the mischief rule.

TWoods:
The company would have found out eventually. I work for a similar O&G, and we are required to fill out a conflict of interest form every year. That includes whether you have family working in an industry similar to ours, competitors, suppliers, or customers... and whether you or a relative may hold stock in sensitive organizations. They would have fired her had she reported her husband's stock dealings later... she had to report to save herself but ultimately lost.

Just for academic reasons, let's say, for the sake of argument, have you carefully considered these points -

1. She says she did not divulge anything to her husband

2. Her husband is not an insider

3. What if a stranger overheard her and made the same investment

Please dwell carefully on these before responding.

nairalanda1:
You are not a lawyer, and you are here justifying evil.

The same way you make this shallow assumption is the same way you have analysed this matter in a shallow fashion.

As I said, you have a little mind. A tiny one.

If you don't , then no wahala. Life goes on. But evil must always be punished, big or small.

This has nothing to do with evil. You are simply ignorant. If I was as presumptuous as you, I would think you are some deluded goody-two-shoes church goer who knows nothing of the actual meaning of good and evil.

Ol boy, good morning.

nairalanda1:
The man did wrong, old boy. Don't justify it.

You are no lawyer either.

If he was as innocent as you are here trying to defend him, why is his govenrment prosecuting him.

I end it here. You guys should stop trying to justify evil.

I repeat... I have said nothing whatsoever about morality. You claimed to understand that and yet you have raised morality twice here again. You even called it "evil."

There is a problem with that because not all legal wrong is morally evil, and this is one instance of such. There are things that are morally wrong but not legally wrong as well... And vice versa.

Evil requires that harm is inflicted on another person in some tangible way. This is not the case here.

As to me not being a lawyer, what a laugh. Do you think I need to prove that to some ignorant stranger on an anonymous platform who doesn't pay my fees. Joker.

Your analysis, understanding and presumptions are very shallow and we have not even touched the aspects of real politics, business and life wisdom involved here.

You have a small mind. A little one.

nairalanda1:
Then the SEC would have told her that 'But how sure are we that you are not lying to us madam? '

There's always a trial for that. The mere question doesn't render her guilty.

nairalanda1:
Forget morality....she had to report. Any lawyer would have advised her to report...because SEC , if they start looking, would not believe her story that her husband was listening in on her calls without her knowledge.

It's like you don't get it....assuming SEC found out by other means, they would have accused her as an accesory. (She is the wife, therefore she must have been sharing information).

If she did not report , by now she would be on her way to jail too.

Please better pause before making presumptions because I am a lawyer myself, and an international one at that.

There are both Fifth Amendment Rights and the convention against spousal testimony both of which can be played in interesting directions.

As a matter of fact it is not a question of what the SEC will be presumed to believe. If indeed she did not divulge to her husband, she has done no wrong.

And so long as the husband did not conspire with her, he has done no wrong either because he was not an insider.

This takes deep strategic legal thinking and analysis my friend. Don't look at it with simplicity.

Now I also spoke about business and political realities for a reason. And I added wisdom. Go figure.

Also you need to stop presuming the SEC would have found out.

This set of labour leadership is beyond useless.

nairalanda1:
This one no be woman vs man matter...this one na man making money from illegally accessing his wife's business calls.

And when he told madam...madam knew she had to report. Or else, if the SEC found out by other means, she too would have joined her husband in jail, no matter how much she said 'I do not know anything'.

Nonsense.

nairalanda1:
Yes, but that does not make what the husband did right. He did wrong, and got caught.

I didn't say a word about morality.

Madam did what she did so that the law does not look at her with one kind eye.

She was extremely foolish. She ought to have sought both legal and strategic advise first from deep experts.

Her unguarded and presumptuous actions destroyed her family and her life.

Same thing for the company.

I no send company. They did what they needed to do. Thats fine.

nairalanda1:
OKAY.....ya think that US be like Nigeria, where there are no records, and no people watching the records....

Okay..o.

I didn't say it's not possible. I didn't even say it's not likely. I said it's not certain.

nairalanda1:
Ok. o. I don talk my own. Na because you dey think this one na femminst oppressing man, that's why you no wan see.

Better realize that this is a serious case.

Nothing to do with feminism.

Everything to do with -

1. Real-Politik
2. Real Business
3. Wisdom
4. Deep law

nairalanda1:
The problem was that once she found out from the husband what happened, she had no choice but to report immediately. Any good lawyer would have advised her to do so

And once the bosses knew, they had to sack her.

Plus, the man listened in on her calls (bad) and profited from the thing(bad)...meaning that he essentially implicated her in his crime. Without her knowledge.

Plus if the man had not told her, and kept quiet...the SEC would have eventually found out, and she, her husband and her company would be in trobule...and no one would believe her protestations. (He is your husband, so you should have know, dem go tell her).

It\s like you guys do not understand the seriousness of the crime. This one no be man vs woman things.

Crap.

nairalanda1:
LOL...you guys, this is not a simp thing, or weak man thing.

The harsh truth is that the SEC would have found out...and they would have punished both the man and the woman.

Insider trading is a serious crime. If they think you are engaging in it, even if you are innocent, you go sweat explaining to the SEC and company.

The woman reported to cover her ass. And even now, I don't think the SEC has taken their eyes off her yet.

It's not certain that they would have found out.

sonofthunder:
That is the height of integrity from the woman. Most of us would have died the confession and enjoyed free money.

The height of stupidity. Wisdom is profitable to direct.

Babanla capital olodo wife!

Away with this accursed cult of spoilt brats.

tctrills:
The stats shows you are wrong. Arab Israelis have as much rights as jews.
Let's talk Gaza.
We can talk about the so called apartheid and slavery if you have any evidence of that.

Ok. I will be back later.

tctrills:
Please mention 2 of his points. I am not speaking to him because he is abusive and not very intelligent. But if point out his points I would address them. He said the Arab slavery was about raising men for war. You want me to respond to such level of ignorance?

Sorry you cant send me on errands to start examining past posts. I am tired.

tctrills:
So your point is that they no longer have a right to their inheritance because of cross breeding?
Are you saying that every light skinned, blue eyed Arab should no longer have rights and inheritance in Arab soil?
What is your point really.

Frankly I have no problem with them enjoying their so called homeland so long as they live and let live and quit the apartheid system of slavery they practice.

tctrills:
I know you are excited by anyone on your side but if I ask you to mention his points, we both know you won't have anything to say so let's not allow him distract us.

You know very well I am not easily swayed. He has delivered strong points.

tctrills:
You used the word almost certainly mixed race which shows you are not 100 percent sure.
But even at that, the modern Israelis spent 100s of years in Europe so why don't you give them the same privilege. They definitely have mixed blood in them.
Still they are jews.they kept their language and heritage even when it was dangerous to do so.
For hundreds of years they were second class citizens in most countries they lived yet they kept the Hebrew language and religion even when it was more convenient to do without.
If for hundreds of years, the world accepted them as jews in other to persecute them but now they are strong and independent, you want to take it away from them, I can't take you serious.

I didn't say they are not Jews. Even you can become a Jew today. I said they are not the same as the Israelites of old.

wirinet:
A military man takes an oath to maintain the territorial integrity of a country with his life. You don't expect a general to fold his hands and watch a section of the country secede.

Even if a military government suspends constitution, that doesn't mean they can give portions of the country away.

Absolute power is absolute power my friend. No one can claim there was a law at the time which required Gowon to consult anyone.

It's best to admit that he had absolute power and in that regard he could also reverse himself.

tctrills:
Stop demeaning yourself.

That South African Nigerian, Esan, Sangresan has wiped the floor with you guys today and shown you up as ignorant. Give it up.

tctrills:
Oga I am still waiting for your evidence since you bring up a very interesting discussion.

That is the evidence. They are obviously white. Not surprising having cross bred extensively in Europe for centuries.

tctrills:
Hope you know that there are many Arabs with blond hair or blue eyes or extreme fair skin like any European?
If you think I am wrong just ask google. I have seen syrians who would pass as Germans if they don't tell you.

Almost certainly mixed race.

Secondly, those would be a minority, unlike today's Israel that is overwhelmingly white.

tctrills:
Please what is your evidence?

They are white.
Jews of old were not white. They were brown just like their neighbors, Arabs.

tctrills:
They were fighting the Canaanites not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not the children of the Canaanites please don't make that mistake.
The Palestinians are more than 90% Arab. Canaanites are not Arabs. In fact, the Arabs conquered and destroyed many Canaanites communities in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Just as the Jews of today ARE NOT the Israelites of old.
They are white Europeans, whereas those of old were Semitic brown people like Arabs.