SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: scion who wrote (87425)10/10/2004 11:04:13 PM
From: Edscharp  Read Replies (2) of 122087
 
This writer, Christoper Byron, takes issue with the government's case with the following allegations and reasoning:

1) That Elgindy bribed Agents Royer and Wingate to obtain confidential information from FBI data banks.

2) That some of the information obtained on a traded stock by FBI Agents, Royer and Wingate, for Elgindy was available to the public and was not confidential.

3) Agent Wingate may have been looking for information on a possible FBI investigation of Elgindy.

4) That Elgindy shared the information with other short-sellers to put pressure on said stock.

Byron then suggests that that the government prosecution goes beyond it's mandate and he takes issue with the prosecution's intent to allege that Elgindy had no right to publicize the information to drive down the price.

This is the part I don't understand. If Elgindy is guilty of the first allegations then the prosecution will certainly want to present a case of motive to the jury and would be perfectly entitled to present the plausible motive of greed. The prosecution would be irresponsible not to. Furthermore, we have all seen recent news about illegal insider trading. On the assumption that Elgindy did obtain even minimal confidential information it would put him at a clear advantage over the average investor who did not have access to the same source of information. This is also illegal even if Byron somehow doesn't think so.

Byron's fear that the prosecution is going to play the 'short trading is evil' card doesn't make any sense either. Short trading has been a fixture in the stock exchange since the mid-1800's. Of course it's not evil. Even an idiot attorney could demonstrate that to a jury. It is however sometimes abused by specific people and therein lies the brunt of the prosecution's case against Elgindy.

I still feel that Elgindy is innocent until proven guilty, and wish him well, but some NY Post columnists simply don't make sense to me.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News