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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (2485)	3/31/1998 9:48:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

Eric, It is true that an honest man is complicit in a crime if just watches when he could have acted to report or stop it. However we have a cloud of fog around BRE-X that Barrick could not penetrate and see clearly what was occurring. Critical things like BRE-X employees making millions shorting have not been seen, Barrick does not seem to have a bottom line positive for that kind of trading. So if they employees of barrick profited it is well hidden. We all talk of non disclosure agreements, they are no effective to force barrick to keep a crime quiet. they are not lawyer/client privileged information. I think if Barrick was sure it was salted they would have acted to debag the cat. Since they were not sure, they could not, as the non disclosure would then be binding on them. In any event Barrick can fight all those contingency lawyers to a halt. Bill