Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Strategies & Market Trends : AP's Crime -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (12)	1/27/2005 11:55:32 AM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 78

If the fact pattern were a tout doing all this, I would imagine that there would be a myriad of posts all over the message board attacking and urging prompt and severe action. the difference is when a tout does similar things, i.e. commits fraud etc... they get a slap on the wrist or very minor time. Just look at the cases of peter tosto and lionel reifler. Major fraud for major money, both recidivists, and peter was even acting as a CI for the gov while committing his last fraud yet he will be out in a couple months. I think he pled guilty to lying to feds while working as a CI in order to avoid further charges from his last fraud. Minor sentences for major criminals. I could see AP gettin 4 years and thinkin he deserves it, but 10 to 20??? Not so sure the punishment fits the crime.

To: rrufff who wrote (12)	1/27/2005 12:53:45 PM
From: peter michaelson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78

rrufff: What is your opinion on this excerpt from the preliminary judge's charge to the jury? "Non-public information is that information which is not generally available to the investing public. The fact that some piece of information is posted on an investment website does not necessarily make it public. Even if there are public rumors or widespread speculation as to a fact, additional information as to that fact is non-public if it is more reliable or specific than the public rumors. The fact that some criminal records are “publicly” available in the sense that they can be found in a public place if a person is looking for them, knows where they are being kept, and has the information required as a practical matter to link the records to specific individuals connected to particular companies, does not mean that these records are “public” for the purposes of the insider trading laws." Do you think it is illegal to trade on information that fits the above definition? At what point should that information be considered public rather than non-public?