Slashdot Mirror


IBM, Intel Execs Arrested Over Insider Trading

An anonymous reader writes to share a report from The Register stating that executives from IBM and Intel have been arrested as a part of insider trading allegations. "According to a report from the Associated Press, six people were arrested today as part of an insider trading case, including Bob Moffat, senior vice president and general manager of IBM's Systems and Technology Group; Rajiv Goel, director of strategic investments at Intel Capital; Anil Kumar, a director at management consultancy McKinsey & Co; and Raj Rajaratnam, the founder of the $7bn Galleon Group hedge fund."

198 comments

  1. :O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God, the world is cruel! It's obvious they are innocent!

    [Senior] Executives never do that!

  2. Intel by sopssa · · Score: 1

    Didn't Intel just a while ago discontinue some of their largest product line too?

    And IBM only supports the enterprise companies.

    Even if Google just today reported great increase in profits, maybe recression still has something to do with it.

  3. Well now... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

    Per TFA, the trading took place from Jan 2007 to July 2007 and they're just making arrests now? Interesting...

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    1. Re:Well now... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No it's not interesting. It takes time to move through all the documents and prepare for the arrest. The word you were looking for is routine.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Well now... by riverat1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Probably nobody cared to investigate it until last January or February.

    3. Re:Well now... by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably wanted to make sure they had a solid case. If they are guilty, who else thinks these guys will get away with a lower sentence then a non-violent drug user?

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are non-violent people sharing proprietary data.

      Both can go to jail. The world is a better place without such criminals.

    5. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who else here thinks both this and non-violent drug use should be NON CRIMES because in either case there is no victim and no injury?

    6. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Similarly, CHIESI obtained inside information from
      MOFFAT concerning IBM and Sun Microsystems and shared that
      information with KURLAND. New Castle subsequently traded on that
      information. For example, in early 2009, New Castle gained
      profits of approximately $500,000 from trades in IBM securities
      and $900,000 from trades in Sun Microsystems securities based on
      material non-public information."

      http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/October09/hedgefundinsidertradingpr.pdf

    7. Re:Well now... by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, routine is doing it, a short investigation showing you're guilty, and then waving your hands like a Jedi and getting off the hook.

      Oh wait, that's only routine for Steve Jobs.

    8. Re:Well now... by spydum · · Score: 1

      The SEC is overwhelmed with work -- so you can imagine that building a case against >6 people took them some time..

    9. Re:Well now... by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Pah, over a yeah to read some papers and bust someone. Right.~

    10. Re:Well now... by maharb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.

      The drug thing is a whole different debate that I do not wish to even start with.

    11. Re:Well now... by The+Empiricist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who else here thinks both this and non-violent drug use should be NON CRIMES because in either case there is no victim and no injury?

      You think that there are no victims and no injuries caused by insider trading? How about the people at the other end of those trades? What about the former shareholder who sold stock early, not having had access to information showing that the stock was undervalued? Or how about the new shareholder who did not have the information to know that the stock was overvalued? Those who have access to proprietary information, or who are in a position to manipulate the value of an organization, have a fiduciary duty of loyalty to shareholders. Insider trading violates that duty and is a subtle, but very real, method of stealing from them. For another perspective, click here.

    12. Re:Well now... by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. Most people don't realize it, but financial crimes in the US are punished pretty severely. Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors. You can get less than that for killing somebody. Martha Stewart got six months for lying to an investigator (while she wasn't under oath) about something that wasn't a crime. As with drunk driving for awhile people have this idea the penalties are light, but in the meantime legislators are reacting to public anger and jacking up the sentences. It takes awhile for reality to sink in to the public consciousness. From here:

      "You can certainly make the case that things have gotten too harsh," said Samuel W. Buell, a former Enron prosecutor who now teaches law at Washington University in St. Louis. "But the reason why things have gotten so harsh is we went through these years when sentences were too light. Maybe we need a correction in the other direction to get a happy medium."

      I think the drug laws are pretty stupid, too, but where I live first time offenders never get jail time for possession. You can usually avoid jail on the second conviction as well if you don't have a bunch of other stuff on your record. By the third one, well, you're an idiot who's going to jail for being an idiot. But only for a few months.

    13. Re:Well now... by MarkvW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I totally agree with you.

      These people are going to have the very very best investigators, experts, and lawyers. They are going to examine every nook and cranny of the case in the attempt to find one little crack of reasonable doubt that will enable them to beat the rap.

      The FBI doesn't just need to dot every i and cross every t, they need to develop a case so tight that even the most moronic juror will see the wrong clear as day, when the best lawyers in the world are trying to obscure everything.

      On top of that, the US Attorneys don't like to go to trial unless they have a slam dunk. Losing makes them (and their administration) look bad--and image is sooo important!!

      Bottom line is that the FBI had to work their ass off to get the goods on these guys and we should all damn well appreciate it!

    14. Re:Well now... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Is that you George? How much more do your neocon masters want us to deregulate? We've already dismantled almost all the laws that were put in place after the crash of '29! There really isn't much more we can do!!

      Well, wait - we CAN allow people to trade entirely on credit, with no collateral at all. Would that make you happy, Mr. Bush?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    15. Re:Well now... by ClosedSource · · Score: 0

      "Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors. You can get less than that for killing somebody."

      I'm inspired by your slippery logic. Yes Skilling got a sentence on the high end of the scale for a white-collar crime and a person could get less for killing on the low end of the scale. It depends on the details of the crimes. Skilling cheated people on a very large scale so he got a big punishment. So what?

    16. Re:Well now... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think Intel pissed someone off with after the 3DMark benchmark cheating was discovered.

      Interesting that the insider trading arrests come approximately a week later?

    17. Re:Well now... by genner · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with you.

      These people are going to have the very very best investigators, experts, and lawyers. They are going to examine every nook and cranny of the case in the attempt to find one little crack of reasonable doubt that will enable them to beat the rap.

      The FBI doesn't just need to dot every i and cross every t, they need to develop a case so tight that even the most moronic juror will see the wrong clear as day, when the best lawyers in the world are trying to obscure everything.

      On top of that, the US Attorneys don't like to go to trial unless they have a slam dunk. Losing makes them (and their administration) look bad--and image is sooo important!!

      Bottom line is that the FBI had to work their ass off to get the goods on these guys and we should all damn well appreciate it!

      Meh...

    18. Re:Well now... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.

      Yep, one player in the market had 'more perfect' information than the others, so it wasn't a fair market.

      OK, Slashcrowd, so what's the way to structurally prevent this from happening? SEC raids are expensive (both the raids and SEC compliance, which eats shareholder value) and not effective at preventing the crimes in the first place. Complete transparency of the companies isn't ideal (nor efficient) either. I don't know the answer, just hoping somebody here does.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Well now... by tsotha · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what?

      The point is that's not the high end of the scale at all. It's not that uncommon to see people who get, literally, hundreds of years for white collar crime. Madoff got 150 years. Now, granted, that's mostly symbolic for a guy in his 70s, but in general financial crimes are such that a prosecutor can usually throw a whole bunch of counts of 3-5 at you to end up with some eye-popping total.

      If I were doing an over/under on these guys I'd say (assuming they're guilty as charged) they each get at least five years in jail for making stock moves that had a negligible effect on the price of the stock they were trading.

    20. Re:Well now... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > By the third one, well, you're an idiot who's going to jail for being an idiot. But only for a few months.

      Why does smoking a joint after work, taking some mushrooms, or dropping some acid make you an idiot?

    21. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And remember that Ivan Boesky had to write a $400,000,000.00 check to the U.S. Government, and still do time. He was actually on my prison (Lompoc FPC) farm irrigation crew humping pipe with the rest of us through tall, wet grass.

      (4 digit UID posting anon. for obvious reasons.)

    22. Re:Well now... by rachit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. Most people don't realize it, but financial crimes in the US are punished pretty severely.

      I don't have a problem with the amount of punishment, but I'm pissed with how few get caught. If you follow the market and take a look at important announcements like rate cuts, economic numbers, earnings reports, etc., you could often (not always) see high volume trade before the announcements pre-announcing the result. Its sad that people almost never get caught, considering how often it happens.

    23. Re:Well now... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Drug crimes are often victimless, financial crimes not so.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    24. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Martha Stewart got six months for lying to an investigator (while she wasn't under oath) about something that wasn't a crime."

      Insider trading is a crime and she had insider information.

    25. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the staff at the SEC were on vacation for balance of the decade until September, 2008, when some were called back to deal with the fallout of the Lehman Brothers/ AIG/ Wachovia/ Merrill Lynch /Citibank unpleasantness.

      Then the rest were made to return after Madoff was arrested in December.

      After that, evidently the SEC buckled down and started noticing what folks on Wall Street had been doing during the late bull market, and went around asking questions.

    26. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All good points, but I really, strongly feel the need to point out that it's "a while". Two words.

      A. While.

      Indefinite article, followed by Noun.

      NOT adverb. NOT "awhile". Not "alot" either (which isn't even a word, but if you're making the former error, you should, at least for consistency's sake, make the latter).

      However. Good points though.

    27. Re:Well now... by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, even young guys who get sentenced to 150 years sometimes get out in their lifetime. The point is that you haven't presented any evidence that in general white-collar criminals are treated more harshly than other criminals.

    28. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors.

      And apparently now the Supreme Court is hearing his appeal on the basis that it may have been impossible for him to get a fair trial in Houston. Great defense: "I f*ed up too bad to be able to get a fair trial". Oh wait, it worked for the big finance companies!

    29. Re:Well now... by soundguy · · Score: 1

      It's not the "getting high" that makes you an idiot. It's the "getting caught 3 times".

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    30. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it wasn't known until later and after the fact. A lot of laws that are broken do not get discovered until well after the fact.

    31. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think your generalizing too much. Financial fraud generally has a harsh sentencing because the very nature of trust that needs to be in place when getting into those positions. This isn't really the same as all white color crimes where some mid-level manager is embezzling a couple grand a month or takes liberal use of the company car, or makes loans to himself and never repays them. That would be included in white collar crimes. What happened here is that securities were exchanged in ways the law considered illegal undermining the credibility of our financial system as well as effect a larger amount of people. They generally treat that more seriously then getting busted for stealing office supplies. The government takes the positions that the financial institutions have to be honest and trustworthy.

    32. Re:Well now... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Many other criminals don't get caught either.

      As for insider trading, to me the following is just as unfair and should be as illegal.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

      So who is going to jail for that?

      In the finance trading world, knowing something 1 day before the rest of the market isn't so different from knowing something 30 milliseconds before everyone else in the market.

      --
    33. Re:Well now... by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      No they're not. Are you nuts? How much time do you think you get for robbing a liquor store? Do you know how many liquor stores you'd have to knock over to make even a million dollars? Let's assume that all liquor stores keep $5000 in the till. You knock them over after hours in a way that ensures no one could possibly get hurt, and not armed. That's 200 liquor stores to make a million bucks.

      No chance in hell you're getting less than 24 years for knocking over 200 liquor stores.

    34. Re:Well now... by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Associate trader information (first/last/ss#) with every trade.

      There *are* patterns. Problem now is: from regulation's perspective, there's no way to tie you to a trade. All an exchange/clearing sees is the firm you used (ie: when you buy shares, all a regulator sees is "bank of america" or something, but then that's the same info they see for thousands of other folks buying/selling in the same day).

      From that pool, it's hard to get a pattern signal that regulators can go to firms with to actually request your information.

      If they could identify *individuals* who sold short stock a week prior to horrible information coming out, and then bought it dirt cheap to cover their position... and have that similar pattern repeat over months/years over a certain account in a certain industry---that would be a case regulators might want to look into. As it is, it's pretty hard for anyone (SEC, etc.) to find individuals as there's no consolidated place that has personally identifiable info.

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    35. Re:Well now... by Potor · · Score: 1

      BRAVO.

    36. Re:Well now... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Well, the post was sarcastic more than insightful, but I think SEC investigations were de-emphasized by the previous administration until last year when things started to fall apart.

    37. Re:Well now... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The problem with insider trading has nothing to do with some investors having better information than others. That's true of every trade, and the vast majority of the time is nothing to worry about. Finding ways to get more timely and trustworthy information than your competitors is central to trade in general, and giving people incentives to discover and act on this information is one of the main functions of a market.

      No, the problem with insider trading is when one or more agents—e.g. the hired managers of a business—take advantage of their position to influence stock prices (directly or indirectly) for their own private benefit to the detriment of their principal(s) (the shareholders as a group). In order for insider trading to occur it is necessary but not sufficient that trade occur on the basis of unpublicized information; the trades must also be the result of someone abusing their position of trust within the company.

      It is meaningless to talk of "victims" and "injuries" resulting from price fluctuations apart from the agent/principle relationship. As with anything else, you have a property right in your shares of the company, not their estimated monetary value, which is nothing more than what other people currently happen to think the shares are worth. A reduction in the stock's bid price is not an injury; if it were then any other action with the potential to reduce the share price would also be an injury, including simply selling your shares and publishing true statements which cast a company in an unfavorable light. The very concept of market-based pricing would be impossible under such conditions.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    38. Re:Well now... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      What about the former shareholder who sold stock early, not having had access to information showing that the stock was undervalued? Or how about the new shareholder who did not have the information to know that the stock was overvalued?

      I agree with you in general—particularly regarding agents' (trusted insiders) duty toward their principals (the shareholders at large)—but this part makes no sense. In what way would someone else's trades prevent an existing shareholder from selling too early? If they were inclined to sell at the current price it seems to me that they would sell regardless of any insider trading. Any attempt to buy up stock at the lower price would signal other investors to anticipate a price increase, making them less likely to sell.

      The same is true in reverse when the shares are overvalued; anyone inclined to buy the overvalued shares would simply have purchased them from someone else, and any significant degree of insider selling should signal other investors that the price will soon be falling, resulting in a more rapid price correction and thus a more efficient market.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    39. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how you go on like your UID is so special...

      (3 digit UID posting anon.)

    40. Re:Well now... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Well, okay. But I wasn't arguing you'd get exactly the equivalent time as burglary. The original poster was trying to say these guys would get less than somebody would for simple possession. Which is wrong.

      Do you get more time for burglary than you would for a white collar crime that netted you the same amount of money? Sure. But I'm okay with that, because no matter what the burglar intended, people get hurt during burglaries.

    41. Re:Well now... by tsotha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, even young guys who get sentenced to 150 years sometimes get out in their lifetime.

      Not for federal crimes they don't. There's no parole in the federal system for crimes committed since November of 1987 - you do every minute of your sentence unless you can get it reversed somehow or you can get a pardon.

      This is exactly what I'm talking about - people remember an article they read twenty years ago about some heinous felon getting early release. Lots of voters read that same article and started baying for blood. Politicians responded. You still think a guy can get 150 years in the federal pen and still get out before he's dead, but it doesn't work that way.

    42. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent comment is interesting but perhaps a little inaccurate

      By 1986, Boesky had become an arbitrageur who had amassed a fortune of more than US$200 million by betting on corporate takeovers. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigated him for making investments based on tips received from corporate insiders. These stock acquisitions were sometimes brazen, with massive purchases occurring only a few days before a corporation announced a takeover. Boesky was on the cover of TIME December 1, 1986.

      Although insider trading of this kind was illegal, laws prohibiting it were rarely enforced until Boesky was prosecuted.[5] Boesky cooperated with the SEC and informed, including the case against financier Michael Milken. As a result of a plea bargain Boesky received a prison sentence of 3.5 years and was fined US$100 million. Although he was released after two years , he was barred from working in the securities business for the remainder of his life.[6] He served his prison sentence at Lompoc Federal Prison Camp near Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

      Boesky never recovered his reputation after doing a stint in jail, and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and compensation for his Guinness share-trading fraud role and a host of separate insider dealing scams.

      It's not a bad life is it even getting caught and doing two years for it. Perhaps the problem is that we might do the same if we ad the same opportunities

    43. Re:Well now... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Whatever makes you think the FBI did any significant part of this investigation? Even when the FBI arrests someone, the case is often assembled by the victims, especially of fiscal fraud.

    44. Re:Well now... by the_womble · · Score: 1

      The recession has changed attitudes. They are now using criminal, rather than civil charges, and the apologists for insider trading have disappeared: people were arguing that it is not really harmful and that it should be decriminalised. While it remained a crime, that attitude probably permeated to the authorities to some extent.

      I know Raj slightly: nice enough a person socially.

    45. Re:Well now... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Jobs (meaning Apple, Inc) did not wait for an investigation, or the results of one, before alerting the SEC and the Press to the presence of irregularities in their stock option pricing methods. You want to be an Apple/Jobs hater? Fine with me, but focus on the facts in pursuit of that noble quest; there's enough of them.

      I proofread and edited the Apple press release that went to the SEC through EDGAR, and I also considered a little insider trading when I realized I had market-moving information, and 30 minutes in which to act. I decided it wasn't worth risking the reputation/incarceration of a friend or two out in the "real" world, and demurred. I'm no saint, though. I just wasn't interested in taking anyone else down with me, and it was against company policy (to say the least) where I worked.

      The company ended up firing me without cause, months later, on the exact day when my corporate medical plan was going into effect; they'd gotten wind that I was very ill. Corruption and lack of ethics come in all sorts of colors, don't they? When Steve Jobs's illness was over-reacted to in the Market, Apple stock plunged. I encouraged several friends with serious cash to double-down and pile into Apple. AAPL was at $80 ... my friends passed on that advice. (That was 108 AAPL dollars ago, by the way, in what? 10 months?)

      My point is that there are many ways to cash in legitimately. It takes patience, finesse, logic, realism and work. Painting all company-men with the same brush is not exactly indicative of the presence of any of those traits.

    46. Re:Well now... by Shea,+Tim · · Score: 1

      I have heard an argument for insider trading being a good thing for the market.

      Liquid markets have the effect of fairly accurately pricing the stock when all of the current information about a company is taken into account. This is essentially the efficient market hypothesis (although I don't think EMH is as efficient as some think.) The idea is that with more information, you get a more accurate price. You can see the effects of this when there is a surprise earnings announcement or another event. The price of a stock can jump up or down significantly.

      With insider trading being illegal, there is an assumption that everyone is trading on publicly available information. This gives insiders a huge advantage. If they know illegal news about a company, they can make immense profits and essentially take money from people right up until the official announcement.

      But what if insider trading was legal? The insiders would still be able to profit from their knowledge. However, they would also have more incentive to act upon their knowledge in the market. Depending on how many insiders know and how many of them act, they could effectively slowly move the stock price to its most accurate price and therefore avoid the shock price movement on the official announcement. This could soften any blows on surprise news for the many investors without the inside knowledge. In effect, they have benefited from the market knowing the inside info even though they themselves knew nothing about it.

      I do see some potential problems with this. Certain news that could effectively be hidden by top management very well might be, and allow them to make massive profits in the market at the company's expense. This could be dealt with by removing management/directors when the shareholders see what they're doing to enrich themselves.

      There are certainly more flaws in this argument which would be great to hear. Do those flaws outweigh the ones in the current system? Could this potentially create a more efficient marketplace even though it has flaws?

    47. Re:Well now... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I don't recall saying anything specifically about federal crimes.

    48. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they are up to date with their "campaign contributions."

    49. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, they weren't de-emphasized. They just weren't as publicized. The last administration went after the CEO's of Tyco, worldcom, enron, and several other companies for insider trading and the equivalent of embezzlement. If anything, they concentrated too much on the big fish and failed to see the smaller fish growing.

    50. Re:Well now... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > It's not the "getting high" that makes you an idiot. It's the "getting caught 3 times".

      The longer you take drugs, the more chance of getting caught. Sounds like you're saying it's stupid to take drugs for a long period of time. I'm not sure this is backed up by any facts. Sure drugs are harmful, but others not so much.

      Also, if you're black/asian then, in the UK at least, you're going to get stopped and searched by the police far more often. Does that make them more stupid too? What can you do to avoid being stopped and searched?

    51. Re:Well now... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      They went after cases that were out in the open and obvious enough they couldn't ignore them. But I'm not saying the D's are any better than the R's at pursuing this sort of stuff. It has more to do with the money that Wall Street interests pour into politics and they're careful to spread it around on both sides so no one is upset about them.

    52. Re:Well now... by epine · · Score: 1

      Most people don't realize it, but from time to time financial crimes in the US are punished pretty severely. Enron's Skilling got 24 years in jail for conspiracy to defraud investors.

      There, fixed that for you. Never thought I'd say that, but I just did. I don't know if this link is any good, it's just the first one I found.
      America Has Become Incarceration Nation
      Circa not so long ago, America had 2.2 million people incarcerated, 5 to 8 times the rate of any other industrial nation, and one guy is serving a 24 year sentence for playing a critical role in putting the entire state of California one step closer to the poor house. Harsh. That's slightly less severe than the penalty for spitting gum onto the sidewalk in Singapore. Or stealing video tapes in America.
      Three strikes law

      Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting

      I see your silky Skilling with my scumbag Andrade in a death wrestle of naked data points. I hope Andrade winds up on top.

      Did Skilling make one bad decision, or was he living a life of culpably bad decisions, day after day, month after month?

      A proficient criminal executive makes it into his early retirement bracket before getting caught the first time, and usually has enough socked away in tax fraud havens not to resort to lifting video tapes to buy a pack of ciggies to smoke on a park bench in his golden years when his prostate starts to leak.

    53. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize that the Ds and Rs do not really decide who investigates what or who get prosecuted or not. Puting politics in this is rather short sighted and as far as the money trail goes, that's generally in shaping laws, not investigating violations of the laws.

      However, if you know of a memo or something where an administration said do not prosecute or do not investigate this person or these charges or this corruption, I would really like to see it and it would lend more credit to your position. Until then, I guess we can just say that it was

      Here is a few little facts to back up what's being said. In 1998, there were 50 SEC
      Commission Opinions & Orders. In 2003 there was 70. in 2004 and 2008 47 with 48 in 2007. in contrast, 2009 has seen only 25 as of October 2. If there are 16 actions by the end of the year as there was in the last quarter of 2008, that would bring the D total up to 41 and put them right on par with Bush and Clinton.

      Face it, the only real difference here is publicity and you being made aware of more. I know you probably want to think your side it doing more or the other side was doing less in order to validate your political ideology or something but it just isn't true.

    54. Re:Well now... by David+Jao · · Score: 1

      If they were inclined to sell at the current price it seems to me that they would sell regardless of any insider trading. Any attempt to buy up stock at the lower price would signal other investors to anticipate a price increase, making them less likely to sell....

      ... any significant degree of insider selling should signal other investors that the price will soon be falling, resulting in a more rapid price correction and thus a more efficient market.

      Your arguments presume an extremely large amount of insider trading, large enough to affect the market price. Such a large amount of insider trading is probably not happening in today's markets, since insider trading is, after all, illegal.

      With insider trading being illegal, the few who break the law gain an unfair advantage, and since finance (unlike manufacturing or engineering) is a zero sum game, if some people have an advantage, then others are by definition disadvantaged.

      If insider trading were legal to everyone, then the unfair advantage disappears, and in that case your arguments might hold. Whether insider trading should be legal or not is a separate debate. The fact is, it's illegal now, and I have no sympathy for those who break this particular law.

    55. Re:Well now... by David+Jao · · Score: 1

      Not for federal crimes they don't. There's no parole in the federal system for crimes committed since November of 1987 - you do every minute of your sentence unless you can get it reversed somehow or you can get a pardon.

      According to Justin Petersen (who spent 41 months in federal prison - he should know), they have indeed abolished parole, but you still get 15% time off for good behavior.

    56. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, that's why it's such a fucking scandal that the Bush administration was firing lawyers in Justice for political reasons.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    57. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean because they weren't prosecuting illegal aliens? It's not more of a scandal then Clinton firing all the justice department prosecutors and replacing them when he first got in office.

    58. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice, make shit up, hope it sticks.

      At the beginning of presidential terms, prosecutors traditionally hand in their resignations. Every president.

      And the fired prosecutors were the ones investigating public corruption.

      And this one was fired to give the job to a buddy.
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-06-prosecutor-rove-aide_x.htm

      You're relying on people's ignorance to slide these by, to slam the Clintons, to praise Bush.

      I am not ignorant, so it doesn't work on me.

      Instead, I point out your lies.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    59. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your pretty ignorant indeed. It seems that your doing what your accusing me of. Your excusing Clinton in order to bash Bush when neither is relevant. You even seem to be perpetuating BS in order to make it stick. Here is a more accurate accounting of what happened At least I didn't praise Bush, like you are Clinton.

      And yes, Clinton came into office with him and/or his friends being investigated for corruption. Well, Hillary and her gang anyways. It's no different and you attempting to make it so has no reflection on reality. Clinton acted on political reasons, Bush did to. It's their right as a sitting president to do so. That's why there are independent investigations and independent counsels that are used when investigating the administration.

    60. Re:Well now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading about this case on the financial blogs, they bugged Rajaratnam's phones for years. These guys better plea bargain like crazy.

    61. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blah blah blah. Where did I praise Clinton? Where?

      Quote me.

      The days when you assholes like you can get away with that shit are long over. We've got the Google now. Anybody can just go find the truth. You have no excuse.

      Put on some pants, you freak.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    62. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      At the same place you falsely accused me of praising Bush. Now go troll somewhere else idiot.

    63. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1, Informative

      The last administration went after the CEO's of Tyco, worldcom, enron, and several other companies for insider trading and the equivalent of embezzlement.

      Praise right there, cocksucker.

      You're a giant fuck stick. Glenn Beck lover. And by lover, I mean semen gobbler.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    64. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That isn't praise, it's the facts. Since when is stating the facts praise? I guess you were impressed or something and in your mind thought Bush deserved praise that you twisted tolling mind simply couldn't allow to happen.

      But hey, when your retort consists of calling me gay, we know who has the problem. Like I said earlier, go troll somewhere else.

    65. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Stating selective facts is praise, especially since I'm the one who had to bring up the justice firings. You want to cover them up.

      You call me trolling. It does not matter. The fact is, 70% of the American people are awake and think you're full of shit. You can't fool the any longer.

      Your ideas are dead. Your side is dead. Conservatism is dead. Yer mom's sex life is dead. Her pussy is really dead, let me tell you.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    66. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, the fact is that your trolling and attempting to make more out of nothing. You mentioned that stating the execs from various organizations were prosecuted when Bush was president is praise, What facts were one sided there? None were asshat. You then attempted to make a mountain out of a mole hill with mentioning the prosecutor firings in order to deflect from the facts that Bush's SEC did go after people. If anyone is attempting to present biased information, it is you. Your simply trolling and can't even stay on topic to do so. Then after you have to jump around topics to make a non-existent point, you resort to name calling and talking about my sexuality or my mother. Your parent must be seriously proud of your mental prowls there. I mean seriously, do you have to resort to name calling or insults to my family just to make your point? It sounds to me like your grasping at things there really bad.

      Perhaps this is a sign of deep problems you have within yourself and with your own life. If your life is so pathetic that you feel the need to put me down or put my mother down when you have never met either of us, then I guess I can allow you to raise your delusional self worth by doing so in order to stop you from looking at yourself really close and deciding the only proper thing to do is to commit suicide. SO go ahead and troll, insult whoever you want. If that's what it's going to take to make you feel better about yourself and not take your own life, then I will not object. But you should think about getting some professional help before you sink into the squallier of a life you have any further and actually hurt yourself. I say this because even the pathetic among us need a chance too. That chance is staring you in the face, you have the ability to not be pathetic and not need to put others down just so you can look in a mirror at yourself.

    67. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dude, I've already shown what an ignorant cock and a liar you are.

      And 70% of the people can see right through you now. You're not fooling anyone.

      I'm just here to laugh at your stupid ass now. So keep on typing, right-wing boy! Every time you reply is another belly laugh from me.

      BTW, conservatives are losers. They LOST the election, and it's all over but the crying. You big fucking baby. Eat it up. Haha.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    68. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Good, now your feeling better about your pathetic self and won't kill yourself today. Keep it going as long as you can. I'm here for you brother. I'm willing to read your insults and asshattery and your making shit up just so you can feel better about yourself just so you do not sink lower and harm yourself.

      That's right, your a winner and everyone else is a looser. Keep saying that to yourself and you just might believe it one of these days.

    69. Re:Well now... by BradleyAndersen · · Score: 1

      So how about we just not allow Steve Jobs to hold any Apple stock?

    70. Re:Well now... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      So you work for Apple (either directly or through a contracted company) and you want people to listen to your unbiased, informed, purely factual opinion about them?

      Facts? The fact is Apple did what they did BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WERE ALREADY BEING INVESTIGATED.
      An investigation doesn't begin when the SEC says "HEY GUYS WE'RE ON TO YOU!". It begins months or years before.

      Irregularities? Complete bullshit. They were all backdating stop options like crazy, and had been doing so for ages. They continue to do so.

      Against company policy? Pro tip: All the peons have to sign a piece of paper saying they won't get involved with insider training. All the higher ups get to participate in insider training.

      You got fired, possibly because you were sick.
      If you WERE fired because you were sick, you could and should sue.
      But were you fired by Apple? And what does it have to do with Apple backdating stock options?

      Your post is basically:
      You're wrong because I edited the press release and that's not what it said.
      I considered some insider trading but decided against it - it's against policy after all.
      I worked for Apple or a company contracted by Apple (I won't tell you which!) for only a few weeks, and I got fired for no reason.

    71. Re:Well now... by The+Empiricist · · Score: 1

      So how about we just not allow Steve Jobs to hold any Apple stock?

      Nothing I said suggests that Steve Jobs should not be allowed to hold any Apple stock. Apple shareholders should benefit if the fortunes of Steve Jobs' are tied with their own. However, as an officer and director of Apple, Steve Jobs cannot act on proprietary knowledge in his purchases/sales of Apple stock. He is also required to notify the SEC of changes in his ownership of Apple stock. Feel free to peruse his filings.

    72. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am a huge loser. I jerk off compulsively. I never denied that.

      But isn't it fucking embarassing for someone like me to be laughing at you, you fucking loser?

      It's like a homeless man just gave you a quarter because you needed it more than he did.

      What a fucking pathetic loser you are. Vote for Palin in 2012 and tell me how that works out for ya, asshole.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    73. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Whatever you need to do brother. That's right, if you feel better about yourself, I'm glad I was here for you.

    74. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm just here to point out that less than 20% of Americans identify as Republicans, mainly because they're not fooled by you losers any more.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    75. Re:Well now... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Skilling was just an example. I would argue that most of his criminality was a result of trying to cover up holes in the balance sheet they thought could be plugged with profits in the future. If you want to talk about outright fraud look at Madof's 150 year sentence. There have been a few multi-hundred-year sentences for guys in a position of trust who actually ran off with other peoples' money.

      On the three strikes law, yeah, I agree it's pretty stupid. It seems like you ought to do no more than a few months for shoplifting no matter how many priors you have. But that's California for you - in the '70s and '80s we had really light punishments. Dan White got 7 1/2 years for killing two people, giving rise to the famous "twinkie defense". There were guys with 20 or 30 serious convictions that managed to convince parole boards this time they'd finally turn it around.

      The easiest issue for a politician to make hay on is "tough on crime". There's a pretty large percentage of voters who will vote for the "tough on crime" guy without really thinking it through. So every campaign we end up with a game of "I'm tougher than he is".

      "My opponent is soft on crime."
      "No I'm not, I'm tougher than him. Look, I support life sentences for child molesters."
      "Oh, that's nothing, I support the death penalty for child molesters. And rapists, and, uh, people who tear the tags off mattresses."

      A few election cycles of "I'm tougher than he is" and you've got a guy in jail for the rest of his life for shoplifting. Part of the problem is you still read stories about guys who did something horrible, got a few years in jail, got out on parole, and then chopped up somebody's little girl. But what makes the papers isn't necessarily what drives good policy, and in any case these guys were originally sentenced when the law was much more forgiving. So the voters thing the law is still forgiving and keep voting for the toughest of the tough guys. I would argue the same kind of dynamic has been occurring for white collar crimes at the national level - the perception hasn't caught up with the reality yet.

    76. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You should also consider that 80% of all statistics are made up. Anyways. go ahead and get it out.

    77. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Informative

      GW Bush fired prosecutors for political purposes.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    78. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So did Reagan, Clinton, Carter, and a host of other presidents. They are political jobs just as Obama effectivly went political with federal law by1 telling the federal prosecutors to not prosecute pot charges that fall in line with state medical marijuana laws.

      There is nothing shocking or new there. It's like your saying the sun goes down at night, well, yea, it does- Who cares.

    79. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD. Look at all my karma. How do that happen?

      BTW, GW Bush fired prosecutors for political purposes. The other guys did not. You're a dirty liar, and only 20% of the population is stupid enough to believe your lies.

      Translation: You will keep on losing.

      And I'll keep on trolling you too. I've got nothing to do but follow you around. One guy I followed for over a year. Care to break a record?

      I WILL get the last word. WILL.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    80. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It was all for political purposes by all the administrations.

      Keep saying whatever it is you need to say in order to justify your idology and feel better about yourself. We went over this before and as I said, I will be there for you.

    81. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      False equivalence, but you're the liar, so it's not surprising.

      All firings are not the same. We're not talking about firings, we're talking about reasons for firings.

      And it just so happens that the reasons Bush and Co. fired prosecutors were illegal reasons.

      Oops, important detail.

      And remember, only 20% of the population is stupid enough to still be fooled by you.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    82. Re:Well now... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Illegal?, and congress being controlled by the democrats did not convene a independent investigation or bring charges against Bush because it was so illegal that he couldn't have been prosecuted?

      Yea, and your calling me the liar. Well, as I said before, it if helps stop you from realizing how pitiful and pathetic your life is and hurting yourself, go right ahead.

    83. Re:Well now... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      Utah! It's all about Utah! Liars in Utah. Trolls talking to trolls. The death of Slashdot.

      20% of the population...

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  4. This is an OUTRAGE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free the Crooks!!!

  5. That's not too bad by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Funny

    Helping the Nazis is worse than insider trading.

    1. Re:That's not too bad by ParanoiaBOTS · · Score: 1

      Helping the Nazis is worse than insider trading.

      So how bad are Nazis that take part in insider trading?

    2. Re:That's not too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paradoxically, they are a bit better than other Nazis who don't do insider trading and thus have more time for expansionist wars, running concentration camps, and kicking dogs.

  6. Corrupt Complete. by sitarlo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this surprise anyone? Insider trading must be commonplace at the executive level across most industries these days. How else, but corruption, do talentless, unethical, unproductive sociopaths get paid? These are all lucrative positions to hold, why do they need to cheat to get more bread? Meanwhile, honest mom and pop outfits are folding like lawn chairs and hardworking people are in debt beyond hope just to from month to month. Will somebody please flush the elitist toilet?

    1. Re:Corrupt Complete. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will somebody please flush the elitist toilet?

      Elitist is a loaded term used by useful idiots, seeking to lump together people of above-average intelligence, (supposedly) more highly refined culture, and (very, very secondarily) the wealthy into a political target group that can be exploited by the right wing populist. Unfortunately, this normally results in the demise of smart people (who cannot defend themselves), while leaving in place the wealthy (who can). In doing so, the right wing defang a properly targeted populist revolt that might actually change the system, which is based on economic class/power differences rather than on cultural/IQ differences. Doing this ensures that the fundamental class system, determined by power structures dictated by economics and wealth are never changed, leaving the idiots in the lower class forever subservient. Wash, repeat.

      So have a ball flushing your elitist toilet and wave back from the sewer outlet as you try to figure out why that doesn't change a damn thing.

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:Corrupt Complete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, elitist is a term used to refer to people who think that due to to talent, money, or power, they possess a higher moral value than people without those talents/money/power/&c. A low-level government employee who thinks he shouldn't have to pay parking tickets is an elitist, a president who thinks he's got a moral obligation to take a bullet for a homeless man isn't. It's about perception, not position.

    3. Re:Corrupt Complete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will somebody please flush the bourgeoisie toilet?

      Bourgeoisie is a loaded term used by useful idiots, seeking to lump together people of above-average intelligence, (supposedly) more highly refined culture, and (very, very secondarily) the wealthy into a political target group that can be exploited by the left wing populist. Unfortunately, this normally results in the demise of smart people (who cannot defend themselves), while leaving in place the wealthy (who can). In doing so, the left wing defang a properly targeted populist revolt that might actually change the system, which is based on economic class/power differences rather than on cultural/IQ differences. Doing this ensures that the fundamental class system, determined by power structures dictated by economics and wealth are never changed, leaving the idiots in the lower class forever subservient. Wash, repeat.

      So have a ball flushing your bourgeoisie toilet and wave back from the sewer outlet as you try to figure out why that doesn't change a damn thing.

      Fixed it for you.

      Do you know the origin of the term "useful idiots"?

    4. Re:Corrupt Complete. by StellarFury · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're both idiots. You're responding to posts assuming a definition of the word that is not the definition the parent was using. I know context is a real subtle thing, but really, you should try paying attention to it. It'll help.

      (For reference, the above text is elitist.)

    5. Re:Corrupt Complete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aw, babbys first snark

    6. Re:Corrupt Complete. by SixGunMojo · · Score: 1

      you dumb-ass pseudo-liberal zombie parakeet

      1. What do you have against zombie parakeets to insult them so

      2. Dumb-ass is kind of a redundant modifier for liberal ;-)

      -------------

      'To comprehend what mathematicians mean by infinity is to contemplate the extent of human stupidity.' --Voltaire

    7. Re:Corrupt Complete. by yuri82 · · Score: 1

      Really well put. It is a tough world out there for those with the brains and no pockets.

      --
      Who is this Karma guy and why is he bad ??
    8. Re:Corrupt Complete. by sitarlo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I don't have any ill-will towards liberal thinking people at all. I'm just tired of people wearing it as some kind of "I'm better than thou" badge. Historically, it's dangerous to identify one's self with a single political philosophy. It stinks of brainwashing and indoctrination. Common sense should be the middle ground where people unite, but common sense is not so common.

    9. Re:Corrupt Complete. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SUBSCRIBE

    10. Re:Corrupt Complete. by Brickwall · · Score: 1
      No, elitist is a term used to refer to people who think that due to to talent, money, or power, they possess a higher moral value than people without those talents/money/power/&c.

      Um, do you mean like Hollywood stars who jet around the globe to tell us to cut down our carbon footprints? Or ex-secretaries like Nancy Pelosi who want to decide what health care options we have, and how our children should be educated? Sounds like the definition of the modern liberal to me "I'm better than you, so I can tell you how to live your life". Feh.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    11. Re:Corrupt Complete. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      "Common sense" is nothing more than the mass of background assumptions you picked up by osmosis while growing up and never bothered to challenge. Lots of it is perfectly logical, for obvious reasons, but other parts are nothing more than oft-repeated lies.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    12. Re:Corrupt Complete. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Elitist is a loaded term used by useful idiots

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Useful idiot was Stalin's term for Westerners who sympathized with the Soviet system and wished to implement it in their own free countries. Stalin was well aware of the horrid nature of his regime, and found it baffling that anyone would actually want to perpetrate such a thing on their countrymen. The more you know...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:Corrupt Complete. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Elitist is a loaded term used by useful idiots, seeking to lump together people of above-average intelligence

      Thank you for demonstrating that you are not one of these people! Elitist is a term used to describe people who think they're part of the best of the best, and treat others accordingly. Period, the end. In fact, it talks about their attitude, not about their financial status. Why don't you try looking at a dictionary sometime? I hear they have a few online.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Corrupt Complete. by sitarlo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It has nothing to do with assumptions. Common sense is simply the ability to use balanced judgement and universal reason when examining a problem to expose a truth acceptable by everyone. The reason why possessing and exercising common sense in society today is looked down upon by the elitists is because its employment exposes corruption and corrupt people.

  7. Bob Moffat et al by router · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nice. So executives at Intel, IBM, Bear Stearns, and McKinsey were tipping off a Billionaire hedge fund manager. Any wonder _how_ he made those Billions, then? And all of them massive contributors to politicians. How nice. These idiots should all go to jail, for a very long time. Maybe, use the per capita income of ordinary Americans to judge their prison terms; 25M/43k/yr = 500 years between them. Some of them _might_ get out in time to die.

    andy

    1. Re:Bob Moffat et al by couchslug · · Score: 0

      The Chinese method for dealing with political corruption is better, final, and satisfies the public right to vengeance against those who betray them.

      Put the financial crooks who are wrecking this country in a stadium and shoot them while the whole world including their families can watch and get the hint. I'll volunteer for the firing squad.

      When gentle, "civilized" effeminate practices fail to stop criminals, then use methods that eliminate them. Had Bernard Madoff been publicly killed instead of going to Club Fed, those wanting to be like him might reconsider.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Bob Moffat et al by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      Yes, rehabilitation sounds perfect.

      and I know just who we can call in for the job.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    3. Re:Bob Moffat et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you threw everyone who had a billion dollars or more in jail, you would reduce the percentage of innocents in jail today.

    4. Re:Bob Moffat et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I know just who we can call in for the job.

      Ghostbusters?

    5. Re:Bob Moffat et al by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you fail to understand is that it would not be the hedge fund managers who were involved in insider trading who would be shot in the public stadium, no they have far too much power and influence (read as money).

      It would be the drug dealers and other relatively insignificant criminals who would find themselves in a stadium preparing to be shot on national television.

    6. Re:Bob Moffat et al by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's the way it was done for centuries all over the world and look at the result. Crime is unknown now .. oh wait.

    7. Re:Bob Moffat et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BEEF SUPREME

    8. Re:Bob Moffat et al by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The Chinese method for dealing with political corruption is better, final, and satisfies the public right to vengeance against those who betray them."

      And a dozen lucky people on various transplant lists get new organs.

    9. Re:Bob Moffat et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but you would certainly be increasing the percentage of assholes.

    10. Re:Bob Moffat et al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People didn't have mass media then. We do now. More viewers, more effect.

    11. Re:Bob Moffat et al by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      So your theory is that hearing about punishment in places far away from home is more effective in deterring crime than hearing about punishment in your own community?

  8. Honestly though... by Sibko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Business as usual for corporations. The only thing out of the ordinary here is that they got caught.

    1. Re:Honestly though... by irtza · · Score: 1

      It was the people running the corporations. Don't let them hide behind the company on this one - let the people involved stand for themselves and be judged in a court of law. I don't believe the companies were charged with any wrongdoing on this one.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    2. Re:Honestly though... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have evidence of more than 50% of corporations engaging in insider trading? Would you like to share?

    3. Re:Honestly though... by jawahar · · Score: 1

      And this menace will be prevented if SEC regulates the Market Capitalization of Companies to TWICE their Quarterly Revenue.

  9. No bad or worse by linumax · · Score: 1

    Since Corporations don't have any moral compass, I'd suppose anything is ok as long as they don't get caught.

    1. Re:No bad or worse by mrmeval · · Score: 2

      When they do get caught can we kill 'em?

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    2. Re:No bad or worse by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OOOHHH! HATE SPEECH!

      We have laws to deal with those who think as you do! Never forget: Corporations are persons and have all the rights of personhood, as enshrined (entombed?) in law. You are a hate-criminal, and probably therefore a violent extremist.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:No bad or worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who gets their information from wikipedia needs to find a better source.

    4. Re:No bad or worse by genner · · Score: 2, Funny

      When they do get caught can we kill 'em?

      You can do whatever you want just don't get caught.

    5. Re:No bad or worse by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:No bad or worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who uses cliches like that needs to learn to think for themselves.

      The entire purpose of wikipedia is to collate and reference varied *third party* sources of information.

      This is almost guaranteed to be more accurate than your own research unless you spend long enough on a particular subject so as to be better informed than the collective of people you're bitching about.

      Wake the fuck up.

    7. Re:No bad or worse by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      The following applies to pretty much anything you might ever want to do:

      You can do whatever you want.

      Once.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
  10. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About time those bloated IBM scumbags were arrested.

  11. No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in business by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's called, 'getting caught.' You see, when you get caught, everyone else in business has to pretend they don't do it, and that they are shocked! Shocked and appalled at the bad apples ruining the barrel. By 'bad apples,' they mean, 'people just like me except they got caught' and by 'ruining the barrel,' they mean, 'drawing the attention of the peons to our utter corruption.'

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  12. Insider trading is only for board members by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm afraid that insider trading is deeply, deeply frowned on by most companies, who put strong clauses in their confidentiality agreements, and at some larger companies provide "training" about how not to do it. I've attended such training several times, as part of corporate mergers, and it's striking how thee announced policy does not apply to VP's in practice: does not apply to "corporate partners": and does not apply to the people who have the most to trade with and the most to gain. It _does_ apply to the peons, the people with stock options who might want to trade them in at the right moment but whose activity might pre-announce and thus reduce the profitability of the corporate changes which are the direct knowledge of those most with the most to gain from insider trading.

    Yes, I've become extremely cynical about this: I know VP's who really try to help their companies and improve their products, but I've been running into far too many since the Dotcom boom who simply studied how to make their bundle and get out with the last glowing quarter on their resume, and get out before the SEC or the market stomps their grandiose "big vision" plans into the dust.

    1. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by Darth+Cider · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I blame Gordon Gekko. No joke. Ever read Oliver Stone's comments about Wall Street? He's horrified by how many stockbrokers and money managers and accountants and traders come up to him and say, "Thanks. That movie changed my life." Gordon Gekko, who said he made 800 thou on his first real estate deal, and it was better than sex, but now it's just a day's pay. Gekko only got caught because he made the mistake of angering a protege who got too close. The latest batch of Gekko wannabes won't make that mistake.

      Seriously, if anyone with inside information wanted to cash in on it, how difficult would it be not to get caught? Just make sure not to leave a trail or be obvious about it. In fact, this is probably factored in to every valuation - as a kind of value leakage, a toll. The cost of doing business. Things could only have gotten a lot more sophisticated since Gekko was king. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

    2. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I heard the same thing in an interview with Michael Lewis, who wrote Liar's Poker, about Wall Street CEOs in the 80s and 90s. The big bombshell that he dropped was that some CEOs were making bonuses upwards of one million dollars. He said that after he wrote that book, he would get letters from Ohio University students asking how they could get jobs like that.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by servognome · · Score: 1

      Seriously, if anyone with inside information wanted to cash in on it, how difficult would it be not to get caught? Just make sure not to leave a trail or be obvious about it.

      It's not trivial to successfully hide insider trading. When you're talking about executives moving thousands of shares, those moves must be reported and will be placed under a microscope. Regulators have statistical models, that will raise red flags if trading patterns are unusual, not to mention the potential of alienating other traders left out of the loop who will take notice if things seem fishy (eg Enron).

      Unfortunately, while there are plenty of tools and regulations to identify inside trader suspects, for prosecutors to actually build a case that can survive legal and political scrutiny is much more difficult.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    4. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also recommend reading How the servant became the predator: analysis on the financial sector and how it's damaging the real economy.

      This part is especially worthy of note:

      "The U.S. real economy suffers from critical shortages of employees with strong mathematical, engineering, and scientific backgrounds. Graduates in these three fields all too frequently choose careers in finance rather than the real economy because the financial sector provides far greater executive compensation. Individuals with these quantitative backgrounds work overwhelmingly in devising the kinds of financial models that were important contributors to the financial crisis. We take people that could be conducting the research & development work essential to the success of our real economy (including its success in becoming sustainable) and put them instead in financial sector activities where, because of that sector’s perverse incentives, they further damage both the financial sector and the real economy."

    5. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

      Interesting reading is also the IBMemployee.com a watchdog website which has been tracking IBM's attitudes and effects on the industry and real peoples lives in the USA, Canada, U.K., India, etc.

      Mr. Moffet has been linked to the internal streamlining of IBM's services groups as well. He and other IBM managers have made decisions which really took a chunk of concentrated internal talent and put them on the street where such talent and knowledge are dissipated because they are no longer working in a unity. IBM is sacrificing R&D and Man Decades of experience for short term fiscal number juggling.

      It would be normal to retro-actively suspect as tainted all leadership,strategic and tactical decisions in light of those arrested. It would also be normal to suspect those they hired, trained and supervised as being tainted, yes-men, or pawns or co-conspirators.

      It is the dual use of the invention of the spreadsheet that has led us here. This are very powerful tool for science and industry and finance. However the spreadsheet ought to be programmed with sound & valid premises to do its function for mankind. Here the err was to game the system by manipulation of the markets so the spreadsheets instead of the expected neutral reporting or predicting work was pre-programmed to pay off.

      Aristotle reasoned this out very long ago and came up with the syllogism. No matter what a person does if one of the premises is unsound or false the conclusion is false. Yes there are many avenues to arrive at such a situation. I encourage financiers to study them. The greedy financiers, really could care less about logic, because money being a human invention is flawed both logically and rationality. In the end money itself does not secure one's life but only is an aid to facilitating and developing that which does: society, family, health.

      Scientists and engineers who have abundance of math/logic training don't get off easy either. How many courses in business ethics are part of the scientific curriculum at University or Trade School. You can do everything mathematically and scientifically correct but for the wrong political reason or purpose.

    6. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by dkf · · Score: 1

      No matter what a person does if one of the premises is unsound or false the conclusion is false.

      You'd be better off describing the conclusion as unsound; it's usually the case that reasoning involves implication and when the premises are not satisfied there, it ends up impossible to make any statement about the truth-status of the conclusion (based on that evidence anyway; other deductions might lead to useful statements).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    7. Re:Insider trading is only for board members by astar · · Score: 1

      I am a fdr type guy. So I read the cite. Probably cops, but maybe just degenerate. Pretty much technophile, which I admit might play well on slashdot. Support sustainable whatever. Notice they liked the post-sputnik era, but as far as I can tell, just become we put an emphasis on science and engineering. Liked the tech bubble, and that is just inexplicable. Did not mention Roosevelt's big industrial push like the TVA project. Pretty much just anti-corruption.
      No program. They had a comments section, so I posted a few questions. On the positive side, they talked about the physical economy and its relation to the financial sector. Of course, I suspect their definition of the physical economy.

      So I will just ask you. Do you think we are
      in a Depression? If so, how do you propose to stop the process? An economic forcast by you for the rest of the year might situate how urgently you feel about it.

  13. Corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And we all know that Satyam means truth, right? We can even offshore our corruption.

  14. Pentium bug.... again. by girlintraining · · Score: 0

    Irony, def.: Executives for a company that makes microprocessors can't do math...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  15. racial profiler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Doesn't seem to be a lack of Indian representation.
    Oh wait, I thought this was the Top Coder thread.

  16. So is this why by teknosapien · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Wall street is still showing record profits after they stole the billions from the American people I start to wonder how much is enough when I see stuff like this - I mean really how many houses cars boats do you need ? Wonder if they are still saying that they don't need tighter regulation.

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
    1. Re:So is this why by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      Strange - Bad people do bad things, they are caught using existing tools and regulations - if their crimes are proven they will be penalized.

      Where do you see the need for more regulation?
      Do you see a need to have these people violate two or three regulations instead of simply one?
      Do you believe that their penalties (if they are proven guilty) are insufficient and deserving of harsher punishment?

      By the way, many of these companies aren't on Wall street, but in Aramok, NY, and Santa Clara, CA.

      Your populist milage may vary

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    2. Re:So is this why by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

      I mean really how many houses cars boats do you need ?

      ALL OF THEM

    3. Re:So is this why by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      I mean really how many houses cars boats do you need ?

      Capitalist: All of them.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    4. Re:So is this why by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Do you see a need to have these people violate two or three regulations instead of simply one?"

      He doesn't see the need for them to violate any regulations but instead to obey them. Nobody but the straw man in your head is interested in creating redundant regulations.

    5. Re:So is this why by teknosapien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Insider trading is as we already know BAD (Ivan the Bad http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id316.htm) on many levels -- the biggest problem is that the rules are played lose and free with out any thought of getting caught. so maybe more regulation isn't the answer but harsher penalties are if you stand to lose everything then maybe you will follow the rules Personally I think All assets should be taken and what ever doesn't get applied to payback should go to say funding health care or some social issue of the times. I mean that makes more sense than the current war on drugs.

      --
      no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
    6. Re:So is this why by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What we DON'T need is 'tighter' regulation written by the same politicians who were bought off in the first place. The corruption starts at the top, and it covers both parties. What we need is a political cleansing, and then the regulatory cleansing will take care of itself.

      --
      Qxe4
    7. Re:So is this why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, many of these companies aren't on Wall street, but in Aramok, NY, and Santa Clara, CA.

      I hope you mean Armonk! :-)

  17. Re:I hope this was the guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it was you who did it to yourself. Start taking up responsibility for your own actions.

  18. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by JustOK · · Score: 1

    Here's your bonus.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  19. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's really a tossup. +5 insightful, or +5 cynical. Ironic that cynicism and insight are so much alike, isn't it?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  20. Those guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh, those guys from IBM are just bastards.

    And the guys from Intel... Bum bum bum bums!

  21. Re:I hope this was the guy by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "Start taking up responsibility for your own actions."

    You mean he outsourced himself? Perhaps you should sober-up before climbing on your high horse.

  22. Intel Insider Trading... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel Insider Trading...

    Add that to Anti-Trust & you gotta really nice bunch of guys.

    A. Mous

  23. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, it's not like there aren't any good, ethical people even at the highest levels of corporate power. There are good, ethical politicians, too. Heck, I've met some of both.

    But in both cases, you have two things working against there being a preponderance of ethical people. First, power tends to attract high functioning sociopaths. Second, and perhaps as a consequence of the first, you have a culture where corruption is seen as normal, a perk of one's position over other people.

    People in positions of power are shielded from anything that can touch their comforting illusions about themselves. They believe that they deserve their positions because they are good people. They are good people because they are in those positions of power, sacrificing their superior selves to make the lives of we, the incompetent peons who need them to look after us, better. Of course they deserve a little on the side for such sacrifice!

    You see, the terrible burden of such awesome responsibility entitles them to whatever they can take because the rules for little people don't apply to them.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  24. There gonna put the IBM guy in a little cell by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    with vertical steel bars from side to side and horizontal blue bars at the top and bottom.

  25. Sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But insider trading is exactly the type of information that investors need to determine the future direction of the company. Right now, the laws basically mean that insiders must act like robots when they trade (all trades timed well in advance) and no one is allowed to provide any useful information to investors lest they get sued. It's a crazy catch-22.

    1. Re:Sorry... by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I think information is allowed to be provided to investors, but it has to be done through a public disclosure, where any investor could potentially access the information at the same time, right? Things like press releases/conferences, maybe announcements on a website, tv/radio/internet news, etc. I might be wrong - I'm definitely no expert on securities law, but I think the *point* is to prevent people getting rich (or avoiding losses) from having access to secrets that other investors don't.

    2. Re:Sorry... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      This seems nonsensical when the annual corporate meetings are held with all employees, who may own stock or stock options. Even if you tell those employees "there is a trading freeze on, due to these business changes", this is why those VP's and more stock-playing employees have divested their shares to family members or business colleagues, with whom they regularly and quietly share insider information.

      I think you're right about the point of the laws, I just find that they're often a sad joke in practice. There's nothing like being the trusted engineer called to recover the email from some pending purchaser, about whom you're supposed to know nothing but the boss is _really upset_ that they haven't gotten the email, and you're forced to read the email to verify that you found the right one, to realize just how much chicanery is going on.

      It made it clear that the president was defrauding clients and our own investors: and I got out, ASAP, with other abuses logged with the staff I worked with to give me cover. I thought about reporting it, but after attorney consultation, found that I didn't have enough to force a prosecution and could profoundly damage my career by becoming an _unsuccessful_ whistleblower.

  26. Good Start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all that need to be done is to go after the dirtballs above these "fall guys".

    All the way to the Top.

  27. Correction by gbutler69 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nice. So INDIAN executives at Intel, IBM, Bear Stearns, and McKinsey were tipping off an INDIAN Billionaire hedge fund manager. Any wonder _how_ he made those Billions, then? And all of them massive contributors to politicians. How nice. These INDIAN idiots should all go to jail, for a very long time. Maybe, use the per capita income of ordinary Americans that is being stolen away from them by a bunch of foreigners to judge their prison terms; 25M/43k/yr = 500 years between them. Some of them _might_ get out in time to die.

    andy

    There, fixed that for you

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent should not be modded troll. This is exactly what happened, political correctness be damned.

    2. Re:Correction by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      No, parent is a troll, because their nationality has nothing to do with the crime they allegedly committed, and was used purely for the purpose of bigotry...Unless the parent also goes around writing in "WHITE AMERICAN" on all articles that mention bad things white Americans do. It's totally irrelevant.

  28. While they're at it ... by Wansu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they can arrest everyone who has ever worked for Goldman Sachs or any of those other bankster firms who are now heaping lavish bonuses on their people, paid for by taxpayers who are becoming unemployed and homeless.

    These IBM/intel guys are small potatoes. Make Geithner and Paulson do the perp walk.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  29. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Same thing applies to pastors and preachers, too. They preach the word of God, and start to think they understand all the exceptions, and when it is 'ok' to break them.

    I knew a guy who had a collection of old/historical bibles. He always locked them up whenever a pastor came over, because he'd had too many of them stolen, by pastors.

    --
    Qxe4
  30. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by sootman · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's just the bad 99% giving the other 1% a bad name. ;-)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  31. Poor guy by winomonkey · · Score: 2

    A guy named Anil Kumar charged with insider trading ... I, I just don't know where to start with this one.

  32. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by johno.ie · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not like there aren't any good, ethical people even at the highest levels of corporate power. There are good, ethical politicians, too. Heck, I've met some of both.

    Heck, I've met both of them. (ftfy)

    --
    872835240
  33. Meanwhile ... by Mrrrrrrr · · Score: 1

    ...Goldman Sachs executives and members of the US Congress roam free.

  34. No White Guys Arrested by Bruha · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I'm sure the real criminals got away, these guys are probably fall guys.

  35. This seems different.. by kefler · · Score: 1

    This seems different than the typical Martha Stewart type deal..

    Just read some of this stuff.. They had phone taps on these guys for a YEAR... They were blatantly sharing information, and it even infers at one point that the IBM Exec got there through influence from this group of people doing the insider trading..

    http://dealbreaker.com/2009/10/rajaratnam-accomplice-danielle.php

  36. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by master5o1 · · Score: 1

    Don't mind me just waiting for your sig to load.

    --
    signature is pants
  37. whiskey tango foxtrot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this website is hard to navigate
    am i sposed to open each post individually, or what? this is dumm. d.u.m , dumm

  38. Intel: Sponsors of Tomorrow's Prison Population by greeze · · Score: 1

    "Our white-collar crimes are not like your white-collar crimes."

  39. Nietzsche had it covered by Potor · · Score: 1

    "The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits." F. Nietzsche, Notes (1880-81; x, 414 f.).

  40. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by ciej · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not like there aren't any good, ethical people even at the highest levels of corporate power. There are good, ethical politicians, too. Heck, I've met some of both.

    There are good, ethical politicians, too. Heck, I've met both of them. - fixed it for you

  41. Palmisano must have been doing something "right" by cavebison · · Score: 1

    Based on his $21 million bonus in 2008

    With those sorts of rewards on offer for "performance", the results are hardly surprising.

    Yet we continue to be surprised.

  42. It's Double Jeopardy Stupid... by djdevon3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, it's because of Double Jeopardy. You can't be tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. They have to get a slam dunk because the court (awesome pun) is completely ripped from under their feet after that. It has absolutely nothing to do with image though most of the uneducated Jerry-Springer-watching public does think that way. Case in point.

  43. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say it's because they didn't have the right friends in the SEC and government. Look at what Goldman Sachs has been getting away with for the past few years and they're still front-running the stock market and getting insider information from FED/treasury. Yet they get a free pass, not even talk of an investigation, never mind people seeing the inside of the gray-bar motel.

  44. Jerk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bob, guys like you doing greedy things like that is the reason IBM won't give me a fucking $50 dollar raise so I can afford a car loan.

    Jerk.

  45. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    They are good people because they are in those positions of power, sacrificing their superior selves to make the lives of we, the incompetent peons who need them to look after us, better.

    You're dead wrong on this one: psychopaths have no illusion whatsoever about what good they do to "us", the lowly ones. Psychopaths only and exclusively look for their own benefit, even if it means a damage for everyone else. They have no conscience whatsoever, but are very charismatic and expert at manipulating. I highly recommend the book Snakes in Suits for anyone interested in the phenomenon of psychopaty in corporate life.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  46. Our inside traders... by BinBoy · · Score: 1

    ...aren't like your inside traders.

  47. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by Tarsir · · Score: 1

    Ironic that cynicism and insight are so much alike, isn't it?

    Not ironic, just a comment on how cynical you yourself are.

  48. Caught by terrorism hunt? by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

    According to ABCnews Raj Rajaratnam is suspected to have given "$3.5 million to the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO), whose assets were frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department in Nov. 2007 because of its alleged ties to the Tamil Tigers."

    I suspect that the others simply got caught by following the money and listening to the wire-taps supposedly a first time for a hedge fund case according to ABCnews.

    It seems the anti-terrorism fraud and money laundering investigations are working to snare more than just directly involved terrorists but also their support system of financial cash inflow.
    Those who are just greedy also get snared.

  49. Re:No, they are guilty of the ONLY crime in busine by spun · · Score: 1

    Well, obviously the sociopaths and psychopaths don't need those excuses internally. I'm talking about the non-sociopaths who tell themselves these things.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  50. 3 Indian Names by jawahar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    3 Indian names in the scam. Am I seeing a pattern?