₦airaland Forum

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.

DeepSight:
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.

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

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

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.

DeepSight:
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.

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.

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.

A Tinubu supporter/slave like yourself also thinks it has morals, when it doesn't even qualify to be called a human being

Tueh!

Musisco01:
These are a jewish couple, betrayal runs in their DNA

Has nothing to do with Jews.

Everything to do with the fact that if she did not report, the sec would have found out eventually. Records

Next thing she knows, she would have been fired from her job and would be in legal soup.

DeepSight:
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.

Exactly 💯

Insider trading sweet die but na crime so the woman was just being civil and responsible

I no go even buy am for my name. Something all of them are doing even Congress men. E reach her turn she dey form holy! I will not buy in my name and she will never know how much I made! I go even form broke

DeepSight:
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.

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.

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.

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.

So what if the information was stolen by someone else unknown to her⚠️

Yes someone could bug her calls,emails, home or something and still retrieve the information perfectly.

She will still go to jail if they find out that she was ripped right🙄

One thing is clear from this thread.
Nigerians have a very different moral compass that is out of sync with everyone else.

What he did was criminal
According to the SEC in the US, a conviction for insider trading may lead to a maximum fine of $5 million and up to 20 years of imprisonment.



There is absolutely no way that he did not know this.

The fact that he "confessed" to his wife shows he knows he broke the law.

in such situations if there was any evidence that his wife knew about it and they went to trial

SHE WOULD FACE THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWENTY YEARS. NOT HIM

Imagine for something she knew nothing about?

And some morons are saying she betrayed him? Who betrayed who here?

If your sister spent 20 years in prison for this would you clap for her and say she is a good wife material?

Nigerians really need their heads examined because most of them are not normal.
They often think they are smart when they are very dumb

Those planning to Japa need to examine themselves. The criminal attitude many Nigerians have will get them into trouble.
Even if the man did not confess he would have been under suspicion. And investigations Someone who does not normally do so wakes up one day and spends nearly $3 million on shares and makes 70% profit and you think no one will notice? Only a stupid Nigerian will believe that
Now the moment it is noticed how long will it take to join the dots and connect him to his wife.

Many people still operate with the mentality of a thief born before CCTV

Insider trading is taken very seriously indeed and the punishment is very harsh
His wife knew this and did the right thing

That is the way their system works
That is why their system works

Sirianese:
A Tinubu supporter/slave like yourself also thinks it has morals, when it doesn't even qualify to be called a human being. Tueh!

First of all, prove that I am Tinubu's supporter. Otherwise, what you said refers to you and not to me.

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.

nairalanda1:
Has nothing to do with Jews.

Everything to do with the fact that if she did not report, the sec would have found out eventually. Records

Next thing she knows, she would have been fired from her job and would be in legal soup.

Her husband traded 46,000 shares, worth millions within days of the announcement of the merger. They would have found that out easily and she would be facing criminal prosecution today. She had no choice here. Her husband failed her.

aribisala0:
One thing is clear from this thread.
Nigerians have a very different moral compass that is out of sync with everyone else.

What he did was criminal
According to the SEC in the US, a conviction for insider trading may lead to a maximum fine of $5 million and up to 20 years of imprisonment.



There is absolutely no way that he did not know this.

The fact that he "confessed" to his wife shows he knows he broke the law.

in such situations if there was any evidence that his wife knew about it and they went to trial

SHE WOULD FACE THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWENTY YEARS. NOT HIM

Imagine for something she knew nothing about?

And some morons are saying she betrayed him? Who betrayed who here?

If your sister spent 20 years in prison for this would you clap for her and say she is a good wife material?

Nigerians really need their heads examined because most of them are not normal.
They often think they are smart when they are very dumb

Those planning to Japa need to examine themselves. The criminal attitude many Nigerians have will get them into trouble.
Even if the man did not confess he would have been under suspicion. And investigations Someone who does not normally do so wakes up one day and spends nearly $3 million on shares and makes 70% profit and you think no one will notice? Only a stupid Nigerian will believe that
Now the moment it is noticed how long will it take to join the dots and connect him to his wife.

Many people still operate with the mentality of a thief born before CCTV

Insider trading is taken very seriously indeed and the punishment is very harsh
His wife knew this and did the right thing

That is the way their system works
That is why their system works

Ohh you think NIGERIANS are born criminals right?

Who are the people that created hacking, spamming, VPNs and tracking apps??🙄

You judge the users but offcourse the people that created the tools are innocent 😇

NIGERIANS are nothing in the hands of Chinese, Russians, Americans and the Indians i tell you⚠️

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



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.



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.

As an investor in the stock market
His antecedents as a trader will convince a jury whether he has previously invested in that scale or 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.

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.

tochez24:
Ohh you think NIGERIANS are born criminals right?

Who are the people that created hacking, spamming and tracking apps??🙄

You judge the users but offcourse the people that created the tools are innocent 😇

I did not say that.
Go and get someone who understands English to explain 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.

I think you are young, for one they are white which makes it extremely difficult for the man to hide the money without her knowing. She will see their tax return and she will know if something changes in his expenses.

Once she is aware she is liable. Unless they both connive and never used a cent out of it. The woman resigns after a few years and works somewhere. Maybe during their retirement they may start spending it. But at a point it might leak unless they employ companies that are good at hiding such monies.

I think the man is just an everyday man.

immortalcrown:
First of all, prove that I am Tinubu's supporter. Otherwise, what you said refers to you and not to me.

Oga, I know you well. You are not a tinubu supporter

The thing is, on this site, if you disagree with someone about whether you should wear black clothes to a wedding, the person will label you a ( tinubu, obi, atiku or buhari or gej or Obasanjo) supporter,lol.

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.

DeepSight:
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.

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

DeepSight:
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.

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

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



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.

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.

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.

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.

DeepSight:
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.

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. That her husband overhead accidentally is not an excuse in law, he had no right to act on that information... the fact that he has since been convicted makes that case, regardless of your groundless claims.

immortalcrown:
True. But objectivism can't bow to subjectivism.

Whatever!

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.

DeepSight:
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.

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

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

TheRealOwner:
Wait o, na the wife dey work, husband make money, con go tell wife, wife vex to report give her Ogas, her Ogas con sack d wife, she con divorce husband

E get as this matter be o

That woman mumu no be small

People who have no knowledge talk ignorantly
This man invested nearly 3 million dollars in a company whose share price has been stable for months a few weeks before a major event making a killing
As an investigator
I would be interested in
1. Where did he get The money. Hardly anyone keeps that kind of cash. So did he get a loan or liquidate other assets?
2. Previous investment behaviour and success
3. Any possible insider source of information

A very simple investigation

DeepSight:
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.

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

talk2hb1:
No, She Betrayed her Husband!
She never entrust any information with him, he did what every other investors do by fishing for information, but unfortunately he fished too close to home.
She exposing her husband confidentiality is betrayal, absolutely betrayal.

Exactly.

the woman na snake.

I hope the man wins in court .