₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
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.

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

[color=#000099][/color]

Chrisrare:
The woman shouldn't have been careless with such sensitive work information. She got the p45 she was looking for.

How was she careless with the official information? The husband only over heard her on phone.

DeepSight:


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.

Where and when did I say there is no conceivable defense? So.on what basis do you conclude I am thinking that when in fact I am.saying the opposite
There is always a conceivable defence. Always

Defence lawyer must chop

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

Hembelembe!

USA is not Nigeria.

If madam had kept quiet, sec would have found out eventually. And she would be joining her husband on the hot seat.

People too no wan go jail!

DeepSight:
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.

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.

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.

You people talk without any sense sometimes..... The SEC and the FBI will find out because the fact is if institutional traders are not cashing in that efficiently.... Then it's most unlikely a single individual won't be able to..... If the matter had gone far, he will still be caught putting the wife directly in the line of fire.

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.

Tradepunter2:
You people talk without any sense sometimes..... The SEC and the FBI will find out because the fact is if institutional traders are not cashing in that efficiently.... Then it's most unlikely a single individual won't be able to..... If the matter had gone far, he will still be caught putting the wife directly in the line of fire.

Besides, it's a form of insider trading which is a crime, seems most people here don't realise that. Or have simply normalized crime so much they can't tell the difference any longer. Similar to the customs guy awarding contracts to a company he is involved in, these are ethical issues and crimes in many other countries.

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

Thank you, very well said. It's shameful people are blaming the woman in a case which is black and white in terms of the law.

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?

DeepSight:
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?

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

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.

As you can see, in your so called saner clime that is fraud.
And he has a case with the jury

See mumu woman. Anyways, most white women are dunces; reason why I always pity the men.

Tradepunter2:
You people talk without any sense sometimes..... The SEC and the FBI will find out because the fact is if institutional traders are not cashing in that efficiently.... Then it's most unlikely a single individual won't be able to..... If the matter had gone far, he will still be caught putting the wife directly in the line of fire.

Your opening sentence already gave you out as someone low on self esteem.

Can't you just quietly make your point without recourse to invectives.

Besides, you are coming late to the party. Other bright minds have already shared the stale information you are struggling to make with greater clarity my guy!

For your information, insider trading is a normal thing every where with people getting away with it.

Nancy pellosi had a case against her and her husband last year but it couldn't be proven.

Don't make SEC and the FBI look like one omniscience organization abeg!

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.

mubarak89:
See mumu woman. Anyways, most white women are dunces; reason why I always pity the men.

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

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?

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.

You are making pleadings that are irrelevant to what you quoted.very wordy but irrelevant
He said the woman did wrong by reporting him
I questioned that

So are you speaking to what exactly she did wrong by reporting him?
That is a moral call. What has that got to do with being a lawyer or how lawyers think ?
Your being a lawyer is irrelevant to that issue?
Unnecessary biography disclosure and attention seeking.
This is an anonymous forum. Some of us prefer that anonymity so don't try to badger.anyone with being a lawyer. Do you know what others do?What
Your response does not even show an organised or methodical mind
We are Talking about A and you are saying B
Lawyer indeed!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

matify83:
Your opening sentence already gave you out as someone low on self esteem.

Can't you just quietly make your point without recourse to invectives.

Besides, you are coming late to the party. Other bright minds have already shared the stale information you are struggling to make with greater clarity my guy!

For your information, insider trading is a normal thing every where with people getting away with it.

Nancy pellosi had a case against her and her husband last year but it couldn't be proven.

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.

there's a great lesson for men to learn from this story.there's a great lesson for men to learn from this story....

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

No, but oga, the evidence here was clear.

Plus the man confessed, and his wife had no choice but to report him rather than take a chance the crime won't be noticed.

ayodele17893:
there's a great lesson for men to learn from this story.there's a great lesson for men to learn from this story....

Yes, don't commit crime.

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

They were both unwise but I think the woman did what she did because the company might later find out the husband's move and prosecute her, thinking she gave the information to her husband...

She wanted to protect herself.

sidonlook:
The woman shouldn't have been sacked though the employer wouldn't believe she is innocent.
But why file for divorce?
She lost job and also want to loose husband.
Oyinbo with their mentality.

Every action you see her take is with the advise of her lawyer.

She will marry again if she want to.
And she will still get job in the job market.

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

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

Oyibo people mumu no get part 2. They are only living off what their ancestors built on centuries ago.
The mordern white man of today is not in any way smarter than any other race on the planet. They are living off past glory.

santaclaws:
They were both unwise. The husband shouldn't have told his wife how he made the money. The wife, upon knowing, shouldn't have told her company, her mistake was the worst of them all...

When you're married to someone who believes in strict uprightness, it could be an issue cos they won't cover for you where other people cover for their families.

She would have had to have reported because the SEC would still have found out without her knowledge.

One american sportsman went to jail in 2019 for similar offences committed in 2014. No one reported. SEC found out by themselves

Phut:
They would have eventually figured out the suspicious deals, both would face criminal charges, as he is currently doing. The wife would go down with him because it’s especially hard for a spouse to prove that they were not aware of insider trading, by their significant other.

This is very correct.
As a mergers and acquisitions manager, you’re bound by confidentiality and Non disclosure agreements. If you’re aware someone has profited from an M&A because of you, you must report it.

Reading many comments here shows how morals have been thrown out of the window and is why when some people japa, they experience issues here.

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

That's Espionage case, Mumu.

DeepSight:
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 mostly responded in another post.

And note her office wasnt 20metres but 20feet away which is just 6 meters or the length of an average living room.

Marriage is a big risk compliance area in the professional services industry and there is typically a lot of documented safeguards, advisory and compliance requirements on it. So it always raises a big red flag on issues like this.

Give an example of how he could have proven and demonstrated to the court that he didnt get the info from his wife but from another source.

I am being patient with you.