Mark Cuban Charged With Insider Trading

geekboy_x writes "The SEC today charged Mark Cuban with insider trading violations, alleging that he divested himself of stock in mamma.com before the stock was diluted via a public offering." Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.

Comments

why should we care?

[circletimessquare]

for all i can tell, the guy registered "broadcast.com" in the 90s, created a pretty business plan, and sold out for billions at exactly the right time, and bought a basketball team

i applaud his timing and his luck and success, but i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot

Re:why should we care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Including harnessing P2P for infrastructure, while publicly championing the technique's place on the Internet despite network operator and copyright holder intererence. He's also spoken influentially for realistic revisions to copyright, contrary to some of his obvious interests as a major copyright holder, as an informed Internet business guru.

Um...What?

Spin-Doctoring at its best.

[Trojan35]

So, Cuban commits SEC fraud, and we're supposed to ignore it because he's anti-Bush and it was 4 years ago?

Re:Spin-Doctoring at its best.

[Doc Ruby]

No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.

I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics behind the attack, the implications of it should alarm you enough to pay attention, not to ignore anything.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[larry bagina]

"Insider trading" can be very vauge and edge cases aren't clearly defined by statute or case law. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading, she was convicted for obstruction of justice during the investigation (which might not have madei t to trial). If he shuts up, doesn't lie, and doesn't try to destroy evidence, he'll find it a lot easier to stay out of jail.

Re:Communism at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should learn what Communism actually is, before making an ass of yourself here?

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[Reality Master 101]

BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake.

I like Mark Cuban, and I can totally believe the Bush administration is trumping up charges against him. That said, your quote is one of my pet peeves, and is DEAD WRONG.

In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The public at large is perfectly within its rights to judge anyone anyway it wants to. For example, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his first trial, yet I have no doubt he performed the crime.

All too often people in power and/or defense attorneys try and manipulate the public with the "innocent until proven guilty" junk. "Don't rush to judgment on my client just because he was seen with a smoking gun in his hand, remember, we're all innocent until proven guilty!" No, I'm under no obligation to judge people based on courtroom rules used to "prove" guilt. I can judge people based on whatever criteria seems reasonable to me.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[techno-vampire]

She was convicted of lying to investigators.

Yes. She was convicted of lying to investigators when she wasn't under oath and hadn't been warned that what she said might be used against her. Not only that, what she lied about must not have been a crime because she was never charged with anything else.

Now we know: never talk to the feds unless your lawyer's present, even if you don't think you've done anything against the law.

Re:Communism at work.

[MindlessAutomata]

I think he meant "wrong" not in a legal context but in a moral context; his argument thus leading, "neither of these two things are really wrong and should not be illegal".

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[pnumoman]

You may be trying to be snide, but yes, you really should always have a lawyer present when that kind of heat is being applied to you. Federal investigators don't have to recite Miranda unless they're taking you under custody. (and depending on what kind of investigator they are, they might not have the authority to take you under custody.) And lying to a federal investigator is a serious no-no regardless of what the circumstances are. See 18 USC 1001. Simply put, don't lie when the feds come asking questions. It's a crime, plain and simple. Or, like parent said, don't say anything unless you have a lawyer present. Oh, and IANAL...yet.

Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps your country will look less like a fascist dictatorship and more like other western countries.

Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It

[nomadic]

I concur with everything you say. Always be polite to the cops or federal agents no matter how obnoxious they are, but demand to see a lawyer and then keep your mouth shut. And IAAL so there's instant credibility!

Now everyone who read this send me $200 for legal services rendered.

Can AND WILL Be Used Against You

[bill_mcgonigle]

To be fair, the lesson I take from it is don't lie to the feds without a lawyer present. (And even then...)

Anything you say that turns out not to be true, even if you don't know it, "can and will be used against you in a court of law." Anything you say that helps you is inadmissible as 'hearsay'.

So if you do a two hour interview, are thoroughly truthful except for 15 seconds, which you may or may not know is not true, the jury will only know about those 15 seconds. Somebody file a bug.