I would answer that the totality of the circumstances is what is considered and each case is different, as it should be. We are judged by our reasonable actions. As someone here posted "it's the smell test." When I find myself in an area that is difficult, and I often can tell when lawyers can't give me precise "answers" or if different lawyers give different answers, then I wouldn't trade or act. Others might take the chance. If I had lots of information and some insider sent me information, I wouldn't trade on it. Why take the chance, apart from ethical considerations? Why risk on 1 trade a reputation and the chance that it may be something that could get you in hot water?
The source and the manner clearly influenced the judge in his charge and the jury in their verdict.
Again - with some weasel words - There are times in life when you feel strongly and you take a shot even in grey areas. I don't think that getting insider information from an FBI guy and then trying to shake down targets is a grey area.
If the defense could show that each and every piece of information was available through google, then I doubt that part of the case would have continued. (not talking about extortion and the other charges now, which would go forward irrespective.)
So what makes it illegal to trade on non-pubic information has more to do with the source of that information or the manner in which it was obtained.
If an insider sends you a link to a non-disclosed criminal conviction of a CEO, then it is illegal to trade on that, but if someone else sends it to you then it is legal to trade on it?
Another question - if your investment decision was based on lots and lots of information, and this particular tidbit of info was not particularly material in the investment decision, does that change the legal view? |
