Not sure why the SEC would be doing civil lawsuits and not inditing on a crime but I'm sure someone here can explain.
I'm not an expert so this is just a guess, I believe there is a different, lesser standard with respect to scienter and intent in a civil charge than a criminal charge.
opinionated "crimes" on record. Insider trading. Blah. You have to wonder how many Wall Street people, company employees and traders commit this crime everyday (plus congressman and state officials.)
Must not be much evidence if they are suing vs charging him with a crime. So we have a money grab by the SEC.
Michelson is not accused of insider trading. He's a "relief defendant". The guy who tipped him is charged with insider trading. The SEC is going after his profits, which were gained due to the insider trading violation by his gambler friend that he got the tip from.
The SEC only has civil authority. Criminal charges , if appropriate, would be pursued by the Justice Department.
The reason why insider trading is a big deal and not an "SEC money grab" is that when people trade based on an inside advantage they "win", and traders in that stock who do not have an advantage by definition "lose". It's kid of like knowing what the hole card is in a poker game. It's pretty simple if you think about it. You should be glad that the SEC trys to protect the public from insider trading.
Get the details first dude. 'Charged with' and 'defendant in' are totally different. And, as mentioned, this is old news. Do some work before posting such an irresponsible headline.
The news previously was that the SEC was looking at his role in the ongoing investigation. Now he has been named in the complaint that was just filed yesterday. As some have pointed out, he was not charged, and he has agreed to repay his $931,000 profit.
The SEC only has civil authority. Criminal charges , if appropriate, would be pursued by the Justice Department.
The reason why insider trading is a big deal and not an "SEC money grab" is that when people trade based on an inside advantage they "win", and traders in that stock who do not have an advantage by definition "lose". It's kid of like knowing what the hole card is in a poker game. It's pretty simple if you think about it. You should be glad that the SEC trys to protect the public from insider trading.
Yes Pete it sounds good on paper, but it is bullshit because they catch very few and if you don't think many people profit from insider info, you are naive - and I don't think you are. I also think big company CEOs manipulate the market to drive prices because they have stock options. If the SEC wants to do away with something that hurts the public, make stock options illegal.
opinionated "crimes" on record. Insider trading. Blah. You have to wonder how many Wall Street people, company employees and traders commit this crime everyday (plus congressman and state officials.)
Must not be much evidence if they are suing vs charging him with a crime. So we have a money grab by the SEC.
a money grab by the sec. What a poorly misinformed individual you are.
The SEC only has civil authority. Criminal charges , if appropriate, would be pursued by the Justice Department.
The reason why insider trading is a big deal and not an "SEC money grab" is that when people trade based on an inside advantage they "win", and traders in that stock who do not have an advantage by definition "lose". It's kid of like knowing what the hole card is in a poker game. It's pretty simple if you think about it. You should be glad that the SEC trys to protect the public from insider trading.
Yes Pete it sounds good on paper, but it is bullshit because they catch very few and if you don't think many people profit from insider info, you are naive - and I don't think you are. I also think big company CEOs manipulate the market to drive prices because they have stock options. If the SEC wants to do away with something that hurts the public, make stock options illegal.
SEC with legislative authority (screw the Constitution)? Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Not sure why the SEC would be doing civil lawsuits and not inditing on a crime but I'm sure someone here can explain.
Not sure why the SEC would be doing civil lawsuits and not inditing on a crime but I'm sure someone here can explain.
I'm not an expert so this is just a guess, I believe there is a different, lesser standard with respect to scienter and intent in a civil charge than a criminal charge.
Must not be much evidence if they are suing vs charging him with a crime. So we have a money grab by the SEC.
The reason why insider trading is a big deal and not an "SEC money grab" is that when people trade based on an inside advantage they "win", and traders in that stock who do not have an advantage by definition "lose". It's kid of like knowing what the hole card is in a poker game. It's pretty simple if you think about it. You should be glad that the SEC trys to protect the public from insider trading.
My first though when I read the OP was, again?
Perhaps, but perjury IS a crime.
The reason why insider trading is a big deal and not an "SEC money grab" is that when people trade based on an inside advantage they "win", and traders in that stock who do not have an advantage by definition "lose". It's kid of like knowing what the hole card is in a poker game. It's pretty simple if you think about it. You should be glad that the SEC trys to protect the public from insider trading.
Yes Pete it sounds good on paper, but it is bullshit because they catch very few and if you don't think many people profit from insider info, you are naive - and I don't think you are. I also think big company CEOs manipulate the market to drive prices because they have stock options. If the SEC wants to do away with something that hurts the public, make stock options illegal.
Must not be much evidence if they are suing vs charging him with a crime. So we have a money grab by the SEC.
Between a urinal and a stall in what used to the blue section....
Quote:
The SEC only has civil authority. Criminal charges , if appropriate, would be pursued by the Justice Department.
The reason why insider trading is a big deal and not an "SEC money grab" is that when people trade based on an inside advantage they "win", and traders in that stock who do not have an advantage by definition "lose". It's kid of like knowing what the hole card is in a poker game. It's pretty simple if you think about it. You should be glad that the SEC trys to protect the public from insider trading.
Yes Pete it sounds good on paper, but it is bullshit because they catch very few and if you don't think many people profit from insider info, you are naive - and I don't think you are. I also think big company CEOs manipulate the market to drive prices because they have stock options. If the SEC wants to do away with something that hurts the public, make stock options illegal.
SEC with legislative authority (screw the Constitution)? Out of the frying pan and into the fire.