Ask Michael Burke Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Ilaine who wrote (36586)	11/17/1998 4:40:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) of 132070

He never did the act that Boesky tried to entrap him. Boesky was a major customer of Drexel's. He asked that a crime (albeit a technical violation) be committed. It was not. The other pieces of proof were likewise flimsy. There was a soft dollar issue. That some of Boesky's commission dollars were in excess of normal commissions and this was supposedly proof of a payoff. There simply was no proof of a crime. There was other supposed parking unrelated to Boesky. But understand that you are talking about someone who was involved with billions of shares of stock and thousands of bond issues and stock takeovers. If on one, shares were in some trading account overnight and no one realized that the combination of accounts breached the 5% rule on reporting beneficial ownership, this does not prove a conspiracy. certainly not with boesky. and supposedly due to this parking, drexel is put out of business. drexel had come out of nowhere to be the most important firm on the street. i regretted my bank robbery analogy. how about two guys that "conspire" to j-walk, is rico invoked?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next