Slashdot Mirror
Mark Cuban Found Not Guilty of Insider Trading
schwit1 writes "Mark Cuban won a years-long fight with the federal government Wednesday as jurors decided that the billionaire basketball team owner did not commit insider-trading when he sold his shares in an Internet company in 2004. The jury in federal district court in Dallas said that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to prove the key elements of its case, including the claim that Cuban agreed to keep certain information confidential and not trade on it. The nine-member jury deliberated about half a day before reaching the unanimous decision that ended the three-week trial."
The balance of power shifts even more
I'm assuming Cuban had a top notch legal team. How much will he recoup after this verdict?
He will probably write off the difference on his taxes.
Stuff that matters!
Nine years on the defense is a costly alternative available to but a fraction of defendants... much like American health care options, there almost seems to be a disparity in the remedies afforded the differing social classes.~
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Now, hopefully he will work to normalize relations with Cuba.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
Quick, someone post something stupid about HFT!
"If it's tat for tit, you must acquit."
Does this mean that I can buy cigars from him again?
How does this qualify in any way?
Even in the Martha Stewart case, they only got her on obstruction of justice. Hard to say whether Cuban was legit or not, all we know is that the evidence was not strong enough to convict.
The theory seems to be that insider trading is so widespread and difficult to prove that one of the government's strategies is to go after a few high profile 'celebrity' cases as a way to drive awareness among the populace. It probably gets your average Joe to think twice before trading on a tip from an executive friend higher up in the corporate ladder, but I suspect the people who really know what they're doing siphon millions out of the market daily.
"failed to prove the key elements of its case, including the claim that Cuban agreed to keep certain information confidential"
Who would believe that Mark Cuban could keep his mouth shut, even if he said he would?
If you have money, you can mount a legal defense. If you don't have money, prosecutors can absolutely destroy you and your life even if you are innocent. There was a book detailing how everyone commits felonies because the federal criminal code, along with regulatory stuff, is so complex. It was called "Three Felonies a Day."
Basically, if a prosecutor wants to put you in jail, you're toast.
So good for Cuban.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
This was a civil case, meaning that he was simply being asked to repay some money, not face jail time.
It also means he was up against the SEC in a spot where they only had to have "Preponderance of Evidence" instead of "Beyond Reason Doubt."
There must have been very little here.
Overreach of federal criminal law is well documented. Anyone interested in the topic should go read "Three Felonies a Day" by Silverglate.
Very few have the resources available to fight -- nearly everyone cops a plea rather than let overzealous prosecutors systematically ruin their lives, which means that government tactics often openly violate the law because they will never get tested in court.
Hell No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olEbwhWDYwM&feature=youtu.be
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is a classic case of the government spending so much time and effort on an investigation (6+ years, tens of millions of dollars) that they can't fold regardless of how poor their case is. Mark Cuban is lucky that he had the wealth to fight this and I am grateful he didn't simply pay the fine, the government generally ruins people who find themselves in this position.
OK, didn't RTFA, but let's assume the following:
- insider trading is trading stock based on information obtained from insiders not available to the general public
- these rules are in place to give the general public the idea that stock trading is a "fair game"
- Cuban talked to the CEO of the company privately and suddenly decides to quickly get rid of the stock in that company
- A few days after the fact the company publishes "bad news" and stock price takes a dive.
Question: is the problem that the SEC couldn't prove that information was passed on that influenced Cuban to sell the stock, or that they stacked so many charges (to make it sound reallllly bad) that they overplayed their hand?
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.