₦airaland Forum

aribisala0:
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

Spot on! That's also assuming BP lawyers would not have done a thorough evaluation of shareholder information.

It Is on threads like this that the gross illiteracy and lack of exposure of users is laid bare starkly.

Has corruption done more than deprive these people of proper living? Has it also reduced the logic of the logical beings this much? You are all more logical than the judge? You know better than the judge?

Nairalanda1, good luck explaining.

BBIA:
Exactly.

the woman na snake.

I hope the man wins in court .

He's already lost. And it's not her fault that he's a criminal.


You should've read the entire thing, not just the parts marked out.

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

BBIA:
Exactly.

the woman na snake.

I hope the man wins in court .

He has been found guilty.

Plus , if the woman had kept quiet, the SEC would have found out anyway, and as someone said here, she would have spent longer in priision for not reporting on time.

Like 20 years in prison for not reporting on time.

This one is not woman vs man matter. America is not Nigeria. Their financial laws are so strict, innocent people have gone to jail for slight violations of them

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.

But all orchestrated by her so called trusted husband; so what do you call that?

The man shouldn’t have told the wife what he did, considering that he violated her privacy rights. Also, the woman shouldn’t have reported the husband. The both of them are wrong here

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.

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.

You must be a criminal. If na your business. You go dey talk this trash. The guy na fraud and betrayed his wife

Achoghim:
The man shouldn’t have told the wife what he did, considering that he violated her privacy rights. Also, the woman shouldn’t have reported the husband. The both of them are wrong here

My brother, this is not Nigeria where anything goes.

1. Whether the man should or should not have told the wife is irrelevant. They would have filed taxes as a couple, he would be required to disclose those gains on his tax return. The 1099 would have included the name of the company whose shares he traded. How does he explain that to his wife?

2. The woman is legally required to report. She would have faced a longer prison sentence once the SEC found out (which they would have) by not disclosing in the first place.

3. Both of them are indeed wrong, but not for the reasons you assume. She should have been far more discreet and he should not have traded on the information.

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.

Musisco01:
But all orchestrated by her so called trusted husband; so what do you call that?

Criminal activity.

Keep in mind that a lot of Americans of all races and colors have gone to jail for similar offences. The SEC exists in part because of those offences.( The SEC was set up in the wake of the great depression which was partly caused by wuru wuru stock trading including insider trading)

DeepSight:
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.



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?



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



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.



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.

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.

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).

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.

Simp na.

Abi u u no see the mumu reason wey he give on why he did it

Simp are terrible people on earth

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.

Simp na.

Abi u u no see the ode reason wey he give on why he did it

Simp are terrible people on earth

DeepSight:
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).

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.

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:
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.

DeepSight:
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.

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.

TWoods:
That's the problem with Nigeria. What the man did is a federal crime in the US. He has already been convicted and most likely will see prison time. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/insider-trading-husband-illegally-profits-17m-after-using-wifes-private-company

You fail to get the point. It’s a crime because he got caught and why was he caught? Because he spoke when he didn’t have to. A lot of these so called big men do this. When they say information is power, what do you think the power actually used for??
Would it also have been a crime too if he was hit with a huge loss on those investments?

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.

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

Perfect summary. funny but simple and straight

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.

magnum247:
You fail to get the point. It’s a crime because he got caught and why was he caught? Because he spoke when he didn’t have to. A lot of these so called big men do this. When they say information is power, what do you think the power actually used for??

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

emkz:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/23/us-man-accused-of-making-18m-from-insider-trading-wife-remote-calls-working-from-home

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68379318

Is this not madness!?

She reported his dealings to her bosses at BP, which later fired her despite having no evidence that she knowingly leaked information to her husband. She eventually moved out of the couple’s home and filed for divorce.

DeepSight:
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.



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?



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



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.



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.

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

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 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.

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.

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 trust my Nigerian babe, wow you are genius , let us keep this between us and stay low

Achoghim:
The man shouldn’t have told the wife what he did, considering that he violated her privacy rights. Also, the woman shouldn’t have reported the husband. The both of them are wrong here

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

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.

magnum247:
You fail to get the point. It’s a crime because he got caught and why was he caught? Because he spoke when he didn’t have to. A lot of these so called big men do this. When they say information is power, what do you think the power actually used for??
Would it also have been a crime too if he was hit with a huge loss on those investments?

I'm quite baffled by the level of reasoning displayed here.

1. It's not a crime because he got caught. It's a crime because it is against the law to trade on nonpublic financial information to benefit yourself.

2. He would have been caught, whether he spoke or not. As i said before, this isn't Nigeria, records exist.

3. Maybe big men in Nigeria do this. Big men who do this in America go to prison.

4. Information may be power, it may also mean jail time if you misuse that information. Try shouting "bomb" on any international flight.

5. The whole point of his purchase was to trade on information that would have driven the price of the stock up. His chances of losing money on that trade is the same as being struck by lightening twice.