Slashdot Mirror


Accused British 'Flash Crash' Stock Trader To Be Extradited To The US (zerohedge.com)

Slashdot reader whoever57 writes: Navinder Sarao has lost his appeal and is set to be extradited to the USA, where he faces charges with a possible maximum sentence of 380 years. He is accused of causing the "flash crash" in 2010, when the Dow Jones index dropped by 1000 points.

He ran his trading from his bedroom in his parents' house and it is claimed that he made more than 30 million pounds (approximately $40 million) in five years. His parents had no idea what he was doing, nor the scale of his income. He is accused of placing trades that he never intended to fill, so, to this naive person, it's hard to distinguish what he did from the large high-speed trading firms.

"Lawyers for Mr Sarao tried to argue that the U.S. crime of spoofing had no equivalent under English law, meaning he could not be sent for trial overseas," reports The Telegraph, adding that he's already spent four months in jail because he didn't have enough money to post his own bail.

209 comments

  1. Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    C'mon Musk, get that Mars train running so all you fuckwit Yanks can fuck off and leave the rest of us alone.

    1. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut your mouth and know your role.

    2. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like the old joke about the UK simply being a large unsinkable US aircraft carrier.

    3. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were, then 9/11 happened. We stayed out of Lybia, the Arab Spring happened and the EU called for us to do something about it. Syria was a civil war incited by the Arab Spring and a dictator butting heads that we were keeping our collective noses out of for a decade. Then suddenly Assad and Russians actions were our fault and we were supposed to fix it. Now we are looking down the barrel at a cold/hot war with Russia at the same time China is aggressively annexing sea territory with the EU again telling us we have to do something about it.

      Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

      Raise your taxes by 20% and take care of your own defense instead of leveraging NATO pacts, then maybe we can finally stop fitting the bill and get universal healthcare. The only reason we are "the world police" is because everyone else expects us to.

    4. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Informative

      C'mon Musk, get that Mars train running so all you fuckwit Yanks can fuck off and leave the rest of us alone.

      Although I agree that generally the U.S. does tend to throw its weight around a little too much over the world, this case isn't a good example. The accused here was trading on U.S. markets. He may have been physically located in the U.K. at the time, but his actions took place in the U.S. It is fully appropriate that he stand trial in the U.S.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    5. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the shit hits the fan, everybody runs to hide behind the US militarily, and everybody, including enemies, runs to hide their money in safe US dollars.

      Complaints are akin to your kids being embarrassed you joked with the supermarket cashier.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause it's the only safe place to be you fuckers shoot everything that moves and then you bomb the shit out of it just in case it may move,

      US forces kill more Allies than the conflict does.

    7. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause it's the only safe place to be you fuckers shoot everything that moves and then you bomb the shit out of it just in case it may move,

      US forces kill more Allies than the conflict does.

      I'm pretty sure that it was the Russians who hit Aleppo last week, not the Americans.

    8. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suppose you posted anti North Korean comments on a North Korean website. Do you think you should be liable for breaking foreign laws of a country you never stepped foot in?

    9. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Do you think you should be liable for breaking foreign laws of a country you never stepped foot in?

      So if I'm in the US just across the boarder from Canada I can shoot all of the people on the Canadian side I want?

    10. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not legal in either country so what is your point?

    11. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Only because the Americans couldn't find it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britland would do the same.

    13. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we learn that hunting. If it moves shoot it.

    14. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

      We we're using Apple Maps, it's not our fault.

    15. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Firing a rifle is legal in the US. According to the poster I replied to, If I'm not stepping foot in Canada they shouldn't have any recourse either.

    16. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's different. Americans are imbued by their creator with certain inalienable rights, one of which is that they can break other countries' laws with impunity because NUMBER ONE!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      When the British open fire, the Germans take cover.
      When the Germans open fire, the British take cover.
      When the Americans open fire, everybody takes cover.

      That dates back to WW2.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by mysidia · · Score: 2

      If the trajectory of your rifle round intentionally caused a bullet cross the border between the US and Canada and inflict damage or loss of life in Canada, then you would have committed an international act of terrorism, or a transnational crime.

      I believe you will find that it is against the laws of both the US and Canada to shoot and kill a person, and the two countries have agreements to mutually co-operate with each other to obtain evidence of crime and assure your timely prosecution.

    19. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The US goobermint spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK's one.
      The UK system covers everybody.
      The US system covers veterans, the very old and some of the very poor.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      While it's true that some countries don't pull their weight defence wise, it would appear that it's something else that's stopping you having something like the NHS.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Which was exactly my point. Obviously the US and the UK have similar agreements. While I can't say if the UK has laws again market manipulation, I would be surprised if they didn't. The US certainly does. Just because someone isn't physically in a country doesn't mean they can't commit a crime there/against it.

    21. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The United States as a whole pays more per capita. The US Government does not.

      A country is more than its government. That is worth remembering.

    22. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Suppose you posted anti North Korean comments on a North Korean website. Do you think you should be liable for breaking foreign laws of a country you never stepped foot in?

      You don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey and which not. Your country either has an extradiction agreement with N.-Korea or not. If yes, you can be extradited for anything that's illegal in both countries. If the country you live in feels otherwise, they can strike "insulting foreign heads of state" off the roster and the issue's solved.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    23. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Historically, might makes right. Says Ghengis Khan, Roman legions, Spanish Galions, Royal navy...

      But on a more practical note today, money makes right say the Chinese...

    24. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best sincere troll I've seen in a while. Don't worry your kind will be kept away from other people if the giant douche gets his way.

    25. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's different. Americans are imbued by their creator with certain inalienable rights, one of which is that they can break other countries' laws with impunity because NUMBER ONE!

      Creator? is that the repulsive Scottish fellow with the strange hair and poor international relations skills?

    26. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Preferably before the CIA has black-ops'ed the whole world into a superstate where US corruption is accepted as law without the threat of trade sanctions.

    27. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      everybody, including enemies, runs to hide their money in safe US dollars.

      And those few that try to end-run around the dollar are invaded to keep the world safe from WMDs.

    28. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      And the outcomes are 30th down the leaderboard of quality. It's almost as if corrupting the sober responsibility of providing healthcare to ones citizens such that the few can suck money out of the system is in conflict with providing quality healthcare. Who'd have thunk? =S

    29. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      If he'd have been supplying weapons to ISIS, he'd have gained an impenetrable presidential aura. As it is, a much more serious crime was committed for which no aura is granted.

    30. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely - "illegal in both countries". This case - isn't.

    31. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The legal jurisdiction of his actions is a matter of debate. Many online sites specify their "location" in the EULA, and American courts usually honour that "contract".

    32. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're trading on US markets, you need to obey US laws regarding market manipulation, or at least sit in a country without an extradition treaty with the US when you do so.

      if you don't want to obey those laws, go manipulate the markets of the London Stock Exchange and leave the US traders/investors alone.

    33. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't accused of market manipulation you fucking dolt.

    34. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Look at the link. They've even put them in different colours.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    35. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually thats not true. Each extradition treaty between countries have clear guides what is and what is not. For example if Kim.com was in Finland it would not be possible to extrodite him acording to the current treaty that is in effect. Google us finland extradition treaty for example

    36. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Presumably that's an overall figure dragged down by the poor who don't get treated until they stagger into ER, where AIUI they can't be turned away. You aren't one of them there corminusts are you?

      Look at figures for the richest ten percent to get a true figure for how <blink>awesome</blink> US healthcare is.

      It's the same with education. Who cares if half of kids leaving highschool can barely read and write so long as you've got Harvard and MIT?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      That approach seems consistent with your name. Do you write policy for the US?

    38. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not if there's a human being on the barrel end it's not.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    39. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Even if he misses, he could still be arrested for exporting munitions without a permit...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    40. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's more a hands-off role - setting the overall tone, doing oversight.

      You should see what I have planned for after the upcoming coronation!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    41. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      :D - say hi to Donald when he's got his cost on the button.

      Whay?, the fix is in but it's not Donald?

    42. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Historically all those empires fell. Historically - they all do, and might-makes-right ones fall the fastest and the hardest.
      The longest-lived empires are those who are well enough defended that their neighbours leave them alone - but do NOT engage in conquests but, rather, leave their neighbours alone in turn.
      That's how the Mayan's managed to build an empire that lasted for 3000 years. Once they consolidated their territory, they stopped. They didn't try to invade and conquer the Aztecs - they just made sure they were well enough secured that the Aztecs wouldn't try to conquer them. 3000 years - that's longer than Christianity is old. That's 3 times what Rome managed. Kahn's Mongol empire lasted barely a century. It was a a lot bigger than Rome and a lot more aggressive - and, as a result, a lot less stable. Spains empire ? If you're being generous maybe 2 centuries - ultimately destroyed by greed more than anything else, but their constant warfare with Britain and the Dutch definitely didn't help while their greed was destroying their currency in a massive case of hyper-inflation.
      The Royal Navy - they did better, all in all almost 500 years that British empire lasted, it's real end only began in the second half of the 20th century and was slow enough that the motherland was able to extricate itself fairly intact. Along with some bizarre diplomatic arrangements such as Canada being a kingdom but not part of the United Kingdom yet having the same person as a monarch.

      In the end though - the more aggressive an empire is, the more short-lived it tends to be.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    43. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by easyTree · · Score: 1

      cost -> finger

    44. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syria was a civil war incited by the Arab Spring and a dictator butting heads that we were keeping our collective noses out of for a decade.

      Bullshit! https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria.

      Once the fire finally ignited you added more fuel:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06...

      Same sort of thing for Libya, Iraq[1] etc. The US has been helping to start fires and keep them ablaze for decades.

      As for 9/11 guess who helped Osama bin Laden and gang grow in power: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sou...
      http://archive.is/1wddN

      Open your eyes. These are all mainstream articles not conspiracy nut sites. You bunch are far from the good guys. Heck even the Russians have more legal justification for messing with Syria (the Syrian government asked them to help).

      If you think a country having a corrupt evil government doing really bad stuff gives other countries the right to help overthrow it perhaps you should look at the USA sometime. Corrupt? Evil? Actively doing really bad stuff? All checked.

      [1] Yeah Saddam was an evil dictator, guess who helped him get in power and kept supporting him? http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03...

    45. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Terwin · · Score: 1

      The US goobermint spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK's one.
      The UK system covers everybody.
      The US system covers veterans, the very old and some of the very poor.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      While it's true that some countries don't pull their weight defence wise, it would appear that it's something else that's stopping you having something like the NHS.

      Take a look at our political system, and who it puts in charge.

      I have a hard time finding a nationally elected US politician that I would be willing to put in charge of the contents of my trash can, let alone anything actually relevant or important.
      Especially when looking at the presidential election this year, would you trust *either* of them to actually spend the money on proper health-care instead of using the money to buy votes or line their own pockets?

    46. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause it's the only safe place to be you fuckers shoot everything that moves and then you bomb the shit out of it just in case it may move,

      US forces kill more Allies than the conflict does.

      I'm pretty sure that it was the Russians who hit Aleppo last week, not the Americans.

      You really want to start comparing how many foreign countries Russia and America have bombed in recent years? It is simply a fact that the United States is the most militarily aggressive country on the planet right now.

    47. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were, then 9/11 happened. We stayed out of Lybia, the Arab Spring happened and the EU called for us to do something about it. Syria was a civil war incited by the Arab Spring and a dictator butting heads that we were keeping our collective noses out of for a decade. Then suddenly Assad and Russians actions were our fault and we were supposed to fix it. Now we are looking down the barrel at a cold/hot war with Russia at the same time China is aggressively annexing sea territory with the EU again telling us we have to do something about it.

      Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

      Raise your taxes by 20% and take care of your own defense instead of leveraging NATO pacts, then maybe we can finally stop fitting the bill and get universal healthcare. The only reason we are "the world police" is because everyone else expects us to.

      Hey, y'all wanted to be the top dog. Own it.

    48. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Blue = Public and compulsory. AKA: Government run (VA Benefits, Medicare/Medicaid) is lumped in with the ACA: You HAVE to get private insurance, or we're going to use the IRS to fine you for thousands if you don't.

    49. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      he could still be arrested for exporting munitions without a permit...

      120.17 Export.

      (6) A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this subchapter.

    50. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      US forces kill more Allies than the conflict does.

      Now there's a [citation needed] if I ever saw one.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    51. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      The US has more capacity to do that than Russia does, and has contributed more forces to UN-approved military actions than Russia has. Moreover, the US hasn't annexed parts of other countries - especially nearby ones - recently.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    52. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. It is very, very common for countries to refuse to extradite people for murder to countries that could impose the death penalty if convicted.

      The extradition agreement actually specifies what will qualify for extradition and what won't. And generally countries reserve the right to refuse extradition of their citizens altogether if they so choose.

    53. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the USofa can only request. Blame your own government for acquiessing to any and all requests for extradition - or anything else, regardless how lame and far fetched.

      Please note, I am not condoning USG activities, which I usually don't.

    54. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq, Afghanistan, take your pick.

    55. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Nothing I've found says that US forces kill more friendly soldiers than the enemy does. There have been a surprisingly high number of friendly fire events, but normally those only kill a few people at a time, and certainly fewer than a lot of enemy engagements. Do you have any actual source?

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    56. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Who ruins a good joke with facts ?

      Anyway, I seriously doubt that any judge would deem a bullet from a gun to meet the definition of either 'launch vehicle' or 'payload'.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    57. Re:Fucking Yanks, world police. by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      Yag, its getting a bit too much to see the leaders of the free world act as if the supreme commander of north korea is not the president ...
      and the uk sucking uncle dick ... like the rest of ... everything ? and so, how come nobody likes americans anymore ?
      bull and more shit
      bleh, im losing my eloquence over it... cant wait to see trumpary & hillz inc. become supreme dictator of the worlds swat teams

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    58. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The United Kingdom fell? When did this happen?

      Someone should tell the queen that her empire fell, and the royal navy that they don't exist anymore.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    59. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      he'd have gained an impenetrable presidential aura.

      That is usually called the royal aura in this case.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    60. Re: Fucking Yanks, world police. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The United Kingdom fell?
      No. The British Empire fell. What exists today has is something quite different and no more the same empire surviving than the modern city of Rome is the Roman Empire.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Rediculous by rossdee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "a possible maximum sentence of 380 years."

    You don't even get that for murder

    1. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He decided to color outside of the lines, which was (for some bizarre reason) allowed by the trading system?

      Instead of fixing the trading system, the law is going to try to put him in jail for 380 years.

      Lesson learned: Never make people look really stupid for not having logical rules against what you are doing. Also, if you make it big in the stock market, know that all eyes will be watching.

    2. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Murder only affects people's lives. This affected company profits, a much more evil crime.

    3. Re:Rediculous by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Worse, it affected their share price.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Rediculous by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      In Texas, for first degree murder, it's maybe 10 years or a bit longer depending on the length of the appeals process.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    5. Re:Rediculous by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      You don't even get that for murder

      He did make a killing on the stock market

    6. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sentence at or over the natural remaining life span of the defendant should be equaled to a death sentence.

    7. Re:Rediculous by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      I thought y'all were putting murderers in the ground out in Texas? Considering what US jails are like that's probably kinder than a life sentence.

    8. Re:Rediculous by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He should be eligible for parole in somewhere over a hundred years.

    9. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone murdered people for 5 years they wouldn't get 380 years? pretty sure they'd get more.

    10. Re:Rediculous by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Had he done the same thing as an employee of Goldman Sachs, he'd have gotten a big year-end bonus and a promotion. The real lesson here is "know your place": only club members get away with this kind of shit.

    11. Re: Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would if you murdered the family of someone in the elite. This guy murdered many of their bank accounts, if only for a short while.

    12. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murder doesn't cost the lawmakers anything. This did.

    13. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, for murder you get electrocuted.

    14. Re:Rediculous by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you kill one person, that person is harmed a lot.

      If you steal $1000 from one person, that person is harmed somewhat (clearly less than the harm caused by murder).
      If you steal $1000 from hundreds of millions of people, the cumulative harm is greater than the total harm of murdering one person.

      I am sure if someone murders as many people as this guy hornswoggled, he would get a harsher sentence.
       

    16. Re: Rediculous by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Yea, really the people responsible are the institutions running trading bots that panicked.

    17. Re:Rediculous by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Only the ones who were minorities and/or couldn't afford a good lawyer. Also, it depends on who was killed and the exact circumstances. Texans are totally cool with 2 men getting in a fight and it escalating to murder, they might even plead that one down to manslaughter. If a Texas lawman was killed, or if it was a woman or child, that's a different story.

    18. Re:Rediculous by Desler · · Score: 1

      People get multiple life sentences for murder all the time.

    19. Re:Rediculous by Desler · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. In Texas, first degree murder can carry a death sentence and if you don't receive that it's often a life sentence without parole. Where exactly did you get that 10 years nonsense?

    20. Re: Rediculous by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or rather don't play by the rules unless you're part of the big good old boys club. Peasants need not apply here are your separate rules

    21. Re: Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are referring to manslaughter (murder with no intent).

    22. Re:Rediculous by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what my statement means. The time in jail is pretty short for most first degree murderers in Texas because in the end they are carried out of prison in a body bag, coffin or buried in the prison cemetery.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    23. Re:Rediculous by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      He meant 10-15 years on death row.

    24. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply untrue. What he did has been considered market abuse for some time, and the banks would not have gone near it. That said, I do not believe he caused the flash crash and I feel there's an amount of scapegoating here. It's scapegoating with a basis however - there's definitely still a transgression.

    25. Re:Rediculous by Streetlight · · Score: 1, Informative

      I used the term first degree murder. First degree means murder carried out with planning. Killing someone in a fight can mean a less severe crime such as second degree or manslaughter carrying a less severe penalty than a death sentence. The charge is often up to the prosecutors and perhaps the accused is given the option of pleading to a lesser crime than first degree murder. Sometimes the jury may be given a choice of deciding the level of the crime committed and the penalty.

      IIRC, in Britain in the past there was no distinction between a planned murder or causing accidental death in an emotional outburst - causing death was murder and there was only one penalty to be carried out in three weeks or so. It thought I read the death penalty was gotten rid of because too many innocent persons were put to death. In the US some folks are being let out of prison after decades in prison because it's found they did not commit the crime they were found guilty of. The Innocence Project estimates 50% of persons convicted of a crime based on eye-witness testimony probably didn't commit the crime. We don't know how many are executed and not later found innocent of a crime.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    26. Re:Rediculous by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Whooosh, you dumb cunt.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:Rediculous by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Goldman Sachs gives tens upon tens of millions in "donations" to politicians from both US political parties in order to get away with this and worse. If he had taken the time to write out the checks instead of cheating everyone of their cut then this wouldn't be happening to him.

    28. Re:Rediculous by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Well, it's Texas. Plenty of times a crime that should have been manslaughter gets convicted as murder. There's all kinds of over-convictions on top of convictions of innocent people, and Texas is the worst of them for this kind of thing.

    29. Re:Rediculous by EEPROMS · · Score: 2

      The stupid thing about all this is the computers he is fooling are technically insider trading anyway. Basically the big financial traders computers insert orders based on incoming orders so as to shaft Mr and Mrs Smith who are placing orders via their home PC.Thus they are using information not available to the general public and using that to inside trade your average american tax payer. Basically Navinder saw the scam and realised the scam itself had a hole in the logic and thus he screwed the people screwing everyone else. Now the political puppets don't like it when anyone but their backers screws the public thus they want to throw him in jail so they can keep the scam going.

    30. Re:Rediculous by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      His mistake was not spending half his earnings on hookers and blow (which may or may not be code for "secretly buried wads of cash and/or bars of gold at an undisclosed location").

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    31. Re:Rediculous by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Make sure you remember that "it's only money" next time a pension fund is looted. After all, it's not like losing money causes people to experience stress, take more risks with their health/safety to save money, or die before their time. IMO the real problem is that the primary fraudsters (seriously, who thought it was a good idea to let high frequency traders steal a bit each time someone makes a trade?) not only got no jailtime, but get to keep millions.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    32. Re:Rediculous by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Some people do, a lot of people don't. A former co-worker of mine murdered a guy at a bar because he thought he was putting some moves on his girlfriend. He was convicted of first degree murder, and got a sentence of 25 years. When he's released in 2021 he will have served just under 21 years for it, not accounting for any further reductions for good behavior. He didn't have a prior record at all, which often affects the sentence passed down.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    33. Re:Rediculous by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Tech giants have been particularly successful in getting their voices heard. They were originally reluctant to play the lobbying game, but soon realised that was a mistake: Microsoft’s prolonged legal battle with the Department of Justice over whether its was abusing its dominant position in the software market, which was finally settled in 2001, persuaded the whole industry that it pays to have friends in Washington. Since then tech companies have turned into some of America’s most assiduous lobbyists and most enthusiastic employers of Washington insiders." -- The Economist, "Dark Arts", September 17th, 2016

      It was comical, really.

    34. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to put "politicians" under quotation marks.

    35. Re: Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe he is being blamed for the proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back. Sucks to be him.

    36. Re: Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't impossible to ascertain the innocence of a dead prisoner. It simply doesn't serve the cost/benefit to innocence project which is to get people released from death row.

      In fact proving the innocence of executed prisoners might do more for their cause, but of course it is harder because they can't help you out.

    37. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a possible maximum sentence of 380 years."

      You don't even get that for murder

      But you could get that for illegally copying 76 DVDs.

    38. Re:Rediculous by gweihir · · Score: 1

      He committed the crime of embarrassing some pretty important people. The traditional penalty for that is death by torture. As that is obviously barbaric, death in an US prison has been substituted (which may not be that much of an improvement...).

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    39. Re:Rediculous by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is allowed by the trading system because it is used by the large players to defraud the smaller players. It is just not permissible to use it if you are a smaller player, but the possibility is there.

      The stock-market is one large organized scam.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    40. Re:Rediculous by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >and the banks would not have gone near it

      The same banks who did this (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/merrill-lynch-ceo-john-thain-resigns-bank-america-bonus-scandal-article-1.421594) would not go near that ? What an odd place to draw your ethical lines.

      Remember that's just the most recent case of a bank stealing millions by defrauding the public or it's own customers - there are 5 or 6 such scandals every year. It's a constant refrain. Last year's dirty list included HSBC.
      Banks stealing money through fraud is so fucking common it's barely even news anymore. Yet khallow still thinks that regulation is something evil - as opposed to the only weapon (however imperfect) we have that can, slightly, reign in evil.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    41. Re:Rediculous by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The big guys have turned the stock market into a casino - and they are the house and the house always wins. If you win too much - they house kneecaps you.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    42. Re:Rediculous by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And he won't get that for this. This is a maximum possible sentence, assuming guilty of all crimes independently, with a lot of aggravating circumstances.

    43. Re:Rediculous by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And as Governor Ted Cruz has informed us - he doesn't CARE what the real innocent-conviction rate is, it has no impact on his love for Texa's record setting execution rate. Even if all the people they kill were innocent he wouldn't consider so much as a stay of executions until the problem is solved - because that's the Christian way right ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    44. Re: Rediculous by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yea, really the people responsible are the institutions running trading bots that panicked.

      It's even more fun or tragic when someone finds a bot which try to do this automatically and be oh so clever about it and then trick the bot to act in a way which result in a loss and then are sentenced because someone was stupid enough to put up that bot which oh the horrors didn't acted optimally / profit-generating in all circumstances!

    45. Re:Rediculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Not allowed to play the game better than the well connected thieves.

    46. Re:Rediculous by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Murder doesn't involve corporate dollars. I think it's more than obvious that money has a much higher priority than life. Especially money that the rich have spoken for.

  3. Blaming the person not the engineering! by DamonHD · · Score: 2

    As I said here:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    blaming the bloke on the other side of the Atlantic when it seems that poor engineering must have been in place even to allow what he did, is like blaming my kids when the curtains come down again (I *know* they need fixing, and have for a while).

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
    1. Re:Blaming the person not the engineering! by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "when it seems that poor engineering must have been in place"

      Should every system be engineered so that it is impossible to game?

  4. Who is lying? by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

    So, this guy makes $40M and saves it in a manner that nobody that knows him sees him living large. Yet, when he's arrested, there's no money to post bail with. Sounds like the $40M a year number is all lies. Or he lied about being broke so he gets to keep his hidden $40M after he serves 300 years of his 380 year sentence. More likely, he didn't make $0.10, but the messing he did trying to made a Wall Street Insider lose $40M, so they insist he has it, even though they know it was lost $0.01 at a time over 4B trades (as that's how HFT works, just usually the other way).

    The answer is always: Follow the money. Someone has it. Someone is lying.

    1. Re:Who is lying? by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US froze his assets. That's why he couldn't post bail.

    2. Re:Who is lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no such thing in England as having to post bail. You can be released on bail with bail conditions, but you don't have to pay anything, because that idea is fucking stupid and just favours the rich innocent over the poor innocent (and everyone is innocent at this stage), making justice non-blind. Everything about this summary doesn't fit together.

    3. Re: Who is lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stop with your truth and good reasoning!!!! We Americans hate that shit!!!

    4. Re:Who is lying? by nanoflower · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed. I've seen too many stories of people that are stuck in jail for minor violations simply because they can't pay the bail costs. What's worse is for those people it often means they lose their jobs and can lose their possessions and home if they are kept in jail long enough even though they've never been tried. There's no way to support that behavior by our (USA) legal system.

    5. Re:Who is lying? by Shimbo · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing in England as having to post bail. You can be released on bail with bail conditions, but you don't have to pay anything.

      Sigh, why bother posting this when 2 seconds in Google can tell you he had a bail of £5 million set but couldn't pay because his assets were frozen. Not everyone gets set a monetary bail but it happens sometimes.

    6. Re:Who is lying? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing in England as having to post bail.

      From TFS:
      "[...] The Telegraph, adding that he's already spent four months in jail because he didn't have enough money to post his own bail."

      Google reports a £5 million bail.

      I don't know how it works in the UK, but in most civilized places, "frozen" assets can be used to defend ones self (including posting bail). I guess the UK is no longer a civilized place.

    7. Re:Who is lying? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Informative

      The US can't freeze UK assets. The UK froze his assets at the request of the US? And when that happened to Kim Dotcom, the NZ government allowed Kim access to his funds for the purposes of legal defense. That generally includes posting bail/bond. Why does the UK not recognize the basic right to a legal defense?

    8. Re: Who is lying? by keltor · · Score: 1

      Bail is definitely able to be set in the U.K.

    9. Re:Who is lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The basis of a bail (via money) does have a good reason at least historically. Its intended purpose was solely to discourage you from skipping out on your court appearance. And if you did, to make sure that the government had money, provided by you and not the taxpayers, to have a bounty hunter track you down and drag you back to court. However today it is hard to justify it as anything but a punishment for people charged with a crime and further punishment for those who don't have the means to post the bond (often having to go to bondsmen, who charges them for the service). People that are no flight risk or are hit with tens of thousands in bail and judges routinely set bails far outside of the reach of the defendant for no reason other than to prevent them from posting bail at all (which is illegal). There's a case that the NY Times did a story on where someone was held for almost a month for the "crime" of having a drinking straw (police called it drug paraphernalia), while the prosecutor tried to get them to sign a plea deal. During his incarceration, and while a report saying that no controlled substances were found on the straw sat in the DAs office, he was severely beaten.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html?_r=0

    10. Re:Who is lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people you are talking about are living completely on credit. It's sad that it's such a common state in the US. Everyone seems to be keeping up with the Joneses, although only the top 15% should actually be able to.

      Nobody has a right to the kind of credit that has been established today. It's only been marketed as such, and it's currently used as a tool to keep the fake middle class in line.

      I had a friend of mine that had a spouse working at a local government office when "the government shut down" a few years back. Man, were they mad about that, they had two decent jobs between them and were still basically living week to week as they'd just bought a house the year before (80/20 loan, over-extended, you all know the story). Now that one of them was working for the government, they were lock step in line with whomever doesn't want to shut the government down simply because that's who is currently paying their bills, and they literally couldn't take a week without pay at the time without risking missing a mortgage payment. It blows my mind. That's power - government can give people jobs, and due to the lifestyle and the marketing of the banks to get these loans that they all "deserve" so they can buy the house and the cars that they all "deserve", they are bought and paid for by that side of the government and can't see the trap they've fallen into. They are incapable of disagreeing at all with the government and do everything they can to protect it. Now all these people playing that game are risking *my* savings and retirement when our economy crashes and that money will be worth a couple of percent of what it's worth today if we're lucky.

    11. Re: Who is lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bail is definitely able to be set in the U.K.

      No, it's not.

      https://www.gov.uk/charged-crime/bail

      Either a judge (or in limited instances a magistrate) deems you suitable to be allowed out on bail, or he doesn't. A surety *never* needs to be posted to secure bail in the UK; in the very, very limited cases where a monetary surety is required, all that is needed is for the defendant to demonstrate that he has access to the funds. No transfer or bonding actually takes place.

      Please stop commenting about things that you clearly know fuck all about.

    12. Re:Who is lying? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does the UK not recognize the basic right to a legal defense?

      It does, except when the US tells it not to.

      See also: Gary McKinnon, Barclays Five.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Who is lying? by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      The US froze his assets. That's why he couldn't post bail.

      Not true. He had $39 million in a Swiss bank account, which he didn't disclose. After spending a few months in jail, he turned over the account to the US authorities and was released on bail. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    14. Re:Who is lying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the routine abuse of the purpose of bail. Bail is supposed to secure the defendant's appearance. Far too often it seems to be a punishment for being charged, out of all proportion to the actual risk of flight.

  5. His real crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... was not trading under the auspices of an investment bank. The bigger criminals don't like competition.

  6. Sounds like he beat them at their own game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the establishments of two countries turned evil.
     
      Nothing to see here I guess.

  7. Re:There is no such thing as "English" law by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong, "English law" refers to the legal system of common law in England and Wales (and that is known as English Law) - Scotland has its own legal system (Scots Law), as does Northern Ireland.

    Neither the United Kingdom nor Britain has a single legal system.

    The quote is perfectly accurate.

  8. Re: There is no such thing as "English" law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't correct people incorrectly. There's no such thing as British law. There is the common law of England, legislation that can be applicable to England, Wales, Scotland, in various permutations, Scottish common law (totally different heritage, systems, procedures than England), and probably stuff specific to Northern Ireland too.

    Muppet.

  9. Tje SEC did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    by allowing their buddies (former working colleagues) on the Street to engage in HFT.
    The Flash Crash should have proven that HFT is a financial weapon of mass destruction with very few controls.
    But wait a few months and the SEC will blame it all on Russian hackers.

  10. What? by dhaen · · Score: 1
    He made $40m yet can't afford the bail? How much is the bail amount then?

    Also he had a "millisecond advantage" over US traders? Did his transactions travel faster than the speed of light? It just doesn't add up.

    1. Re: What? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Maybe he lost it all or had assets frozen.

    2. Re:What? by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Informative

      He used their millisecond advantage against them.

      HFTs front run the orders. He puts up a sell order for 1000 shares of stock X for $1.00
      before it can execute N HFTs are putting up sell orders at $0.99
      This drives actual sellers to $0.95 where he bought , and canceled his sell @$1.00
      The HFTs then are no longer front running and the price moves back up to something around $0.98
      at which point he sells.

    3. Re:What? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So he abused a flaw in the cheating bastards who are doing high frequency trading. Like finding a flaw in the aimbots the cheaters are using in an FPS game and using it to get kills. And they want to jail him for 380 years ("ban him from life") for that.

    4. Re: What? by dhaen · · Score: 2

      Looking further into it: You're right, his assets were frozen but enough was eventually released to meet the bail requirements. I've almost no doubt he did way was alleged - indeed it's said he modified one of his orders 7.5M times. What I'd like to know is how is this different from any other high frequency trading?

    5. Re:What? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Correct.

    6. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He used their millisecond advantage against them.

      HFTs front run the orders. He puts up a sell order for 1000 shares of stock X for $1.00 before it can execute N HFTs are putting up sell orders at $0.99 This drives actual sellers to $0.95 where he bought , and canceled his sell @$1.00 The HFTs then are no longer front running and the price moves back up to something around $0.98 at which point he sells.

      Forgive me for asking a dumb question here - but do we have an expert who can comment on whether this is illegal? The last Slashdot story on this (https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/03/24/0048242/flash-crash-trader-navinder-sarao-faces-us-extradition) touched on it but didn't fully answer it with a source. Dishonest - yes ... but is it illegal? And if so, by US law, UK law, or both?

    7. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only like casinos - everyone can play as long as they're losing.

      Anyone that's winning is assumed to be cheating, and cheating is illegal.
      The laws surrounding it are so vague they can essentially lock you up forever.
      Your assets will be frozen and eventually recouped via forfeiture laws.

      Nothing gained, absolutely everything lost.

    8. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm reading right he was naked short selling
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_short_selling

    9. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... The HFTs then are no longer front running ...

      I'm not sure what 'front-running' means.

      What stops the corporate traders from creating the same pricing spiral? As I recall, automated trading systems did just that in 1997 and a few more times since? Why is it his fault that the micro-arbitrage behaviour that everyone uses, causes price fluctuations? That question takes usback to: Why doesn't that happen when the rich guys do it?

      It sounds like the system is rigged so self-employed traders set the price. IE. When the little guy sees a good deal, the faster corporations try to cash-in as well. This self-employer found a loophole in their parasitic trading.

    10. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a broker and a client places an order for you to buy a large volume of stock, you know that that stocks price will rise.
      You can make a lot of money if you buy some of that that stock before actually executing the order. You can buy it while the price is still low and then sell it after the price goes up - even sell the shares you bought cheaply to your client as the final shares in completing the transaction. It's illegal to do that if you're a broker.
      It's called front running because you put your trade in front of your client's trade, you're running in front of them. It's illegal to do that.

      If you posted on Slashdot, or told me in a conversation that you're going to buy 10 million shares of Ford stock and I run out and buy it today, that's not front-running because I'm not neither a broker nor a client of you and don't have a financial relationship with you.

      In other words, front running is buying or selling shares of the stock your client wants to trade between the time the order is placed and before you execute the order. What high frequency traders do isn't front running because they are not the broker that executes the transaction. What HFT traders try to do is discover the limits of buy and sell orders as they are placed on the open market. If you know a seller's lower limit and a buyer's upper limit, then you can get in between those trades and make the most advantageous deal for yourself by buying from the seller and then selling those shares to the buyer.

      I do not oppose HFT trading in itself, but I strongly oppose the tool they use for price upper/lower limit discovery: placing and cancelling orders to find to limits.
      Generally speaking HFT traders can fill any of the orders they place, but they do not intend to do so until they finish their discovery.
      People who don't like HFT call it front-running because then it would be illegal, but it's not so it isn't.
      Personally, I'd fix it by placing a tax on all orders - filled or cancelled.

      The net effect of HFT, as it is normally practiced, narrows the buy/sell gap between real orders and reduces volatility or large price swings for real orders.
      People confuse algorithmic (computerized program trading) with HFT. They're not the same thing.
      Algorithmic trading is what causes the market to shit its pants when something unusual happens. Usually the HFT traders get out when the market hiccups.

      What Sarao was doing was something like placing large bogus orders (that is, ones he could never fill even if he wanted to) with increasing prices before cancelling that made it appear that the prices were rising. People have been trying to do this forever (especially in penny stocks) and it's been illegal almost as long. But the flash crash wasn't his fault. That was caused by a fundamental problem in the markets that he triggered by his actions. He stepped on a land mine, but the fault belongs to the people who buried the mine.

  11. Re:There is no such thing as "English" law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    try a quick google search in the future prior to submitting statements like "there is no such thing as english law"...

    http://legal-dictionary.thefre...

  12. Patently FALSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all are morons! Jesus Christ, read the first fucking paragraph!

    The crime is making orders with the intent to cancel before being fulfilled. High frequency is not the crime. Cancellations are not the crime. The intent to cancel, in order to create a false market perception, is the crime.

    Intent can be a difficult thing to establish, but a pattern of cancelled-while-unfulfilled orders, combined with other orders that profit from the market perception that the unfulfilled orders create, is a very clear establishment of such intent. And it is something that the traders at Goldman Sachs can make a fortune without doing.

    1. Re:Patently FALSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My research is only coming up with a rule against financial spoofing encoded in law as of December 2010. In other words, he's being extradited for something that wasn't even a law until six months after he did the thing.

      It's bollocks that we normies can't take advantage of features in the stock exchange because they might cause special snowflake trading programs to shit the bed.

    2. Re:Patently FALSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The crime is making orders with the intent to cancel before being fulfilled.

      There are hundreds of HFT algorithms making millions of trades a day operating under this explicit premise.
      There are support algorithms which are never written to trade a dime, whose only purpose is to spoof and cancel in support of other algorithms, or to adjust market conditions.
      There are algorithms written to quote stuff, dummy prices, and sniff out stops.
      At the end of the day, all these algorithms close their accounts and end up not holding a single share.

      The intent has always been to defraud, never to trade.

      And it is something that the traders at Goldman Sachs can make a fortune without doing.

      No one making money on Wall Street is playing by the rules. You are a financial sector shill.

    3. Re:Patently FALSE by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how Lord Rothschild Took control of the entirety of the English market a few hundred years ago. Essentially how the banking industry started its reign of power.

  13. Just curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this was a Russian person who caused a crash in the UK markets, would you be making the same arguments against extradition? His actions caused a major impact in the financial markets of a foreign country. What if he did this to China?

  14. REALLY? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The crime is making orders with the intent to cancel before being fulfilled. ... The intent to cancel, in order to create a false market perception, is the crime. ... a pattern of cancelled-while-unfulfilled orders, combined with other orders that profit from the market perception that the unfulfilled orders create, is a very clear establishment of such intent.

    Is it also an establishment of intent if you (as a large financial firm) deploy, in actual trading on real markets with real money, an algorithm that exhibits such behavior? If, in addition, you KEEP it deployed even after its behavior is noticed and complained about in public media of the sort likely to be read by trading professionals?

    And it is something that the traders at Goldman Sachs can make a fortune without doing.

    But it's something that they can make a BIGGER fortune by DOING. And something that can count toward the rise of individuals and groups through the corporate ladder and pay scale.

    While don't recall if G.S. was specifically one of the organizations complained about (and am not going to spend the time right now digging through archives to check), I DO recall com"plaints about high-speed traders taking advantage of the cancellation features of the online market engines in just this way.

    One of the advantages of shaving milliseconds off the communication delays and algorithms that was specifically mentioned (once the pattern was observed) was the ability to send an order and a cancellation in rapid enough succession that it could not be pounced on (and thus didn't really risk money), sending price signals that tricked competing, slightly less high-speed or well-tuned, algorithms into making other bad trades from which their operators lost and the perpetrators gained.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:REALLY? by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      from which their operators lost and the perpetrators gained.

      Not perpetrators, opponents. This is a game, and they're playing for money. Just like in Las Vegas, if an individual extracts too much money from the house, he's out of the establishment, or worse, as in this case.

    2. Re:REALLY? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Not perpetrators, opponents.

      Once it's illegal, they're perpetrators. No more or less than con men or burglars.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not perpetrators, opponents.

      Are you daft?

      This is a game, and they're playing for money.

      The discussion is whether what the person the article is about did something illegal or not and if the firms doing what this sub-thread discusses is also illegal or not.

      If yes, then they are perpetrators.

      If no, then they are assholes, or as you would like to put it, "opponents", in a game of assholes.

    4. Re:REALLY? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      But when you're Goldman sachs you can create an elaborate tunnel of anonymous shell companies owned by other anonymous shell companies. One of them places the fake orders, another with no discernable connection places the real orders that will profit from the false perception. Both happen in millisecond time frames a few thousand at once - and a fortune in paper money is siphoned off in a classic case of rent-seeking behaviour but none of it can be traced back to you - indeed it's all but impossible to find out, let alone prove, that the two companies which have so colluded even knew of each other's existence - let alone that they are both just legal entities whose money, ultimately, goes to Goldman Sachs.

      It's a little harder to hide it so well when you're one dude in a basement.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  15. Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 min by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's really quite simple - he committed fraud, on a large scale. There's nothing specific to high-frequency trading here, though it was easier for him to fool computer programs that to fool people - humans would have been more likely to notice his that his orders were fraudulent. He could have run the same fraud in 1940, though - he just would have been more likely to get caught sooner.

    He would find a stock selling for $1.20. He would then place thousands and thousands of orders saying "I'd like to sell this stock for $1". Of course, nobody would then be offering to buy for $1.20, since he said he was selling for $1. He drove the price down with his sell orders. Then he'd cancel those thousands of sell orders, essentially saying "nope, I was lying, I won't really sell for $1". In the meantime, while the price was down due to his bogus offers to sell, he'd buy at $1.05 or whatever. As soon as it was found out that his thousands of sell orders were bogus, the price would go back up to about $1.20, where it belonged. He had bought a $1.20 stock for $1.05 buying fraudulently offering to sell at $1, thousands of times, with no intention of actually doing so.

  16. Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thief by raymorris · · Score: 2

    It's probably a bad idea to leave your door unlocked. That doesn't excuse the thief who takes advantage of the fact the door was unlocked.

    This guy entered thousands and thousands of fraudulent offers, with full intent to reneg on those offers. Fraud isn't okay just because you managed to fool the victim.

  17. Hardly The Man Who Broke The Bank Of England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy gets centuries in jail, yet George Soros gets to play puppetmaster for the world.

  18. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Take away the ability to cancel orders.

  19. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not understanding why the orders weren't immediately filled at the lower price.

  20. Hookers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hookers and blow. He spent all the $40M on hookers and blow.

    I guess that really does make him a professional stock trader then!

  21. Re:Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thie by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    On, it's renege. Two, isn't that what HFT is all about?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  22. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

    If the order system let him make the offer, and didn't enforce it by making him pay for it, how is it fraud? Why didn't the trading system just ban his account the first time or first day he did this? Why does the ability to cancel a trade exist at all? Shouldn't the trading process be :

    1. Wire the money or at least electronically commit the funds in a brokerage account to the trade
    2. Send the buy or sell order once the money to support the trade is there
    3. Transfer the stock between brokerage accounts at the clearing price.

  23. Little guy not allowed to play with big crooks by TractorBarry · · Score: 1, Informative

    Once again we see an individual attempting to do something which attracts criminal charges... unless they're in the right club. Do I see any bankers getting charged for any of the criminal dealings that led to all the bank collapses ? No. Unless it's Iceland who seem to a) have balls and b) still actually govern themselves.

    And once again we see that the UK is no longer a sovereign country but is simply a fiefdom of the corporate USA oligarchies.

    If a UK citizen has committed a crime on UK soil they should be tried in a UK court by a UK judge.

    Fuck the American "justice" system where the men with the money make the rules.

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  24. So why aren't American bankers in jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmmmm.....

  25. Fucking Limeys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wot, you pissed that you pissed away your empire?

    Maybe you shouldn't have been shagging a can of spotted dick and having a spot of earl grey with Hitler.

  26. Re:There is no such thing as "English" law by cbraescu1 · · Score: 0

    Any proofs?

    --
    Catalin Braescu
    Ofaly.com
  27. Thanks for keeping us safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile the elite bankers that actually crashed the US economy got bailed out and given nice bonuses. But yeah keep voting in the same elite crooks election after election.

  28. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit.

    The price of a stock is the price at which the last transaction took place.

    So, unless he actually did sell stock for $1, which he didn't because they were 'fake' orders, this has exactly zero influence on the price.

  29. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The system must have allowed it, so the system is wrong, I hope at the same time those responsible for ensuring the trading system is secure will also be, being charged as criminals. To me it is pretty clear that he put in the sell order, then realised he had made a mistake (perhaps a computer error) and withdrew the order before it was fulfilled.

  30. Double Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US wont allow UK to extradite anyone but expect UK, UK should stop being pussies and show some back bone.

  31. Re: Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One, it's one. Oh the irony is never sweeter than when it strikes a pedantic assholes.

  32. Re: There is no such thing as "English" law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basic knowledge of the law, as can be seen in the terms and conditions on any web page of a company or charity registered in england or wales?

  33. What's the Good of High-Frequency Trading? by jaa101 · · Score: 1

    He used their millisecond advantage against them.

    What if all trades were batched up and handled on something like one-second boundaries, i.e., kill off high-frequency trading? What would be lost? As far as I can tell, almost all of its effect so far has been to advantage the high end traders who have the resources to compete. There would also seem to be substantial risks of instability. Since the traders are free to use any algorithm they like there's no way to guarantee the stability of the whole system.

  34. I am becomming more and more ashamed... by BlueCoder · · Score: 0

    As a U.S. citizen.....

    Both judges and the executive branch are violating the constitution if not common law. Justify it in whatever doublespeak you wish. If he wasn't on U.S. soil then he has no obligation to U.S. law. At best if he signed something then maybe an international tribunal before being handed over.

    Where are the elected officials defending the constitution as they have pledged under oath?

  35. Not fraud, good business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cancelling an order and re-ordering at the new lower price is business not fraud. If you FAILED to do that in a company then you'd be sacked.

    The problem is the Goldman Sachs of this world, ALSO use HFT algorithms and those are crapper. Which is why their sell price drops based on orders placed, not on trades executed. They should slow down their HFT logic and base sells on orders processed, not POTENTIAL orders in the que that their HFT algo THINKS WILL execute.

    The problem here is really he upset Goldman Sachs, who have a revolving door with the US treasury (US treasury head is former GS, as are lots of the staff) and employ lots of powerful people (e.g. Manuel Barosso etc. hired for their political connections not investment talent).

    1. Re:Not fraud, good business by raymorris · · Score: 1

      To understand why some other trader's pricing algorithm doesn't really matter, see this explanation of how you can run the exact same scam on ebay:

      https://slashdot.org/comments....

  36. Re:Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thie by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

    isn't that what HFT is all about?

    No. HFT is legitimate buying and selling, just done at high speed. An order goes through, ownership is transferred... everything you'd expect from a legitimate business, just executed very quickly. What's different here is that this guy allegedly posted transaction orders just long enough to affect market prices, then canceling them, capitalizing on the price fluctuations with separate legitimate trades.

    Cancelling orders is a protection mechanism for accidentally making stupid orders, like putting an extra digit in the price. When exploited to significantly alter the market, it's a bad-faith contract, which is generally illegal in most countries, though the particular codified law varies wildly.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  37. Re:There is no such thing as "English" law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any proofs?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law

  38. He did it six years, rhousands of times, admitted by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > To me it is pretty clear that he put in the sell order, then realised he had made a mistake (perhaps a computer error) and withdrew the order before it was fulfilled.

    He did it for SIX YEARS , thousands of times. He admits what he didb. His defense is essentially "there's no law against commiting fraud extremely quickly." There IS a law against comitting fraud . Doing it quickly doesn't make it legal.

  39. Re: Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been shown that high speed trading bots have placed and cancelled orders to gauge the market.

  40. System has changed. Cancel 1 order vs 19,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The system has been changed to avoid a repeat.

    Imagine you order a cable from Newegg, then six hours later you realize you ordered the wrong thing , so you cancel the order . It's useful to you to be able to cancel, and only costs Newegg a few cents to handle the cancelled order. The ability to cancel AN order is good. Imagine you had a scheme where you placed 19,000 seperate orders from online retailers totaling many millions of dollars, then cancelled them all. Somehow you were making money doing these bogus orders. You kept doing this for six years. You'd expect someone might want to have a word with you.

  41. No, that would mean prices couldn't change by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > The price of a stock is the price at which the last transaction took place.

    Suppose a stock was last traded at $10. Does that mean if I want to sell the stock NOW, it'll necesarily sell for $10? Which then becomes the new "last transaction", so that stock permanently buys and sells for $10?

    No, there are two CURRENT prices for a stock right now. There's the price someone is offering to sell it for, and the price someone is offering to buy it. These are called "ask" and "bid".

    Suppose there are 1,000 orders offering to sell a stock at $55. You want to buy. What price will you offer to buy? You'll offer about $55, of you actually want to buy it, because you know that people are willing to sell it for $55.

    Maybe you'd still want to buy even if the offer to sell was $100, but you're damn sure not going to offer $100 when you know people will sell it to you for $55!

    If those thousands of offers to sell at $55 were fake you wouldn't know it immediately. You'd still offer to buy at $55, or more likely offer $54.99875 and see if anybody takes it. Without the fake offers to sell, you'd see the real sell orders at $100 and as a buyer you'd offer $99.99875.

  42. Re:Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thie by gweihir · · Score: 1

    If that door is the door to a nuclear power plant, then the amount of responsibility on the party leaving it open is far bigger than on the party using that mistake. Seriously, missing safety features are gross negligence and should routinely be treated the same as intent. Of course, the same fraud is run by other, very powerful players, so this _is_ intent.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  43. Ps you can run exact same scam on eBay or Craigsli by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Ps people can run the exact same scam on eBay "selling" popular items like iPhones or hard drives, or in some cities on Craigslist. It really has nothing to do with high frequency trading or even with stocks. The only requirement is a marketplace where you can advertise a very low price and string buyers along long enough for real sellers to get discouraged about lack of buyers and reduce their price a bit.

    Suppose each day on eBay 20 new iphones are sold, at just about $600 each. Sellers know that every day many buyers bid, so they don't have to set a reserve price at $590 - they know bidders will get the price to about $600. So each day 20 people sell and 20 people buy, for about $600 (or whateve this month's going price is).

    Now suppose I go find a few listings with a low reserve or no reserve. They close at 1PM, 1:20PM, and 1:45PM. I could then post 100 listings offering to sell iphones for $400, closing at 1:50M. With a bunch of sellers offering to sell at $400, how much will bidders bid on iphones from the other sellers? Not more than $400, of course.

    So between 1:00PM and 1:50PM buyers won't offer more than $400. I bid $405 on the listings ending during that time period and win. Then I click to cancel all my fake offers to sell for $400, claiming that my box full of iphones got stolen or rained on. Now I've bought three iphones for $405 each.

    The next day, my fake listings are gone, so the price is back to normal at $600. I sell for $600 each the phones I bought for $405, a profit of $195 per phone.

    Ebay has a button for sellers to cancel a sale, in case an itembdoes get rained on or something after it's posted. Cancelling A sale is okay. If I do this thousands and thousands of times, fraudulently posting offers I have no intent to honor, that's fraud and if I kept it up for six years I might well end up in jail.

  44. What line did he cross that HFT doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there isn't one other than club membership, is equal protection a defense?

  45. One small order to gauge the market, yes by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yes, people will use one small order for the purpose of gauging the market. One order among many has little to no effect.

    This guy placed 19,000 large fake orders for the purpose of defrauding the market.

    1. Re:One small order to gauge the market, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "people will use one small order"? Downplaying it, are we?
      If it had "little to no effect" then there would not be a reason to do it. Clearly, there is a reason to do it.

    2. Re:One small order to gauge the market, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the explanation. I fully understand what he did, now.

      I still would not consider it even immoral, considering the venue. We are talking about a computerized market, after all. And if it is illegal, then it is a fault in the law, or possibly the stock market technical implementation.

      Doing what he did hurts nobody, has no real effect on the physical world. He just moved bits, better than anyone else. Let him keep his money, and start giving lectures to HTF algorithm designers!

    3. Re:One small order to gauge the market, yes by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      one small order doesn't change anything, 19,000 small orders do. It's the volume that matters, not what it is.

  46. Re:Ps you can run exact same scam on eBay or Craig by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    But ebay would (or at least should) catch you if you did that a bunch of times. If they allowed someone to commit that transaction thousands of times then it'd seriously undermine the entire platform.

  47. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I honestly do not see that as fraud. If you came to my hypothetical shop and pulled the same trick then I'd say no deal and you'd be shown the door. This should apply here, only the hft's is to be at fault for letting the system be 'gamed'. They got schooled and people on ws don't like that very much, esp from an outside horse...

  48. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... cancel those thousands of sell orders ...

    As far as I can tell, it's legal to cancel thousands of buy orders. Why is that?

    ... orders were fraudulent?

    Because he was lying about his identity or his authority to buy? Which legal requirement did he fail to fulfill? If the trading system allowed orders to be cancelled, that's not his fault: He did what the trading system was designed to do.

  49. Russian Hackers did it. by hackus · · Score: 1

    I don't always crash the markets. But when I do I do it from my parents basement.

    Trade Frosty my friend.

    What a load of horse crap. No way did this one guy crash the market.

    The markets are rigged. Since 2007 we do not have a market economy.

    Everything is now planned by the Fed.

    We ARE now the Russians.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  50. Re: Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thi by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    when it strikes a pedantic assholes.

    I couldn't agree more.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  51. Wait by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    He made 40-million in a few months but he couldn't afford bail ? Must be a graduate of Trump university.

    (Seriously - his accounts are probably frozen as is common in financial crimes prosecution - but this is not usually allowed to interfere with bail).

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  52. Re:Leaving a door unlocked doesn't excuse the thie by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I thought that when I first read about HFT. Dictum Meum Pactum and all that.

    But reading around it seemed that's exactly what they were doing.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  53. Re:There is no such thing as "English" law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=scots+law

  54. HFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High frequency trading from parents house bedroom on residential DSL or Cable lines god knows how far from the market servers??? Wow I guess all the banks and hedge funds instead of paying millions a month for fiber that gives them 1-2 ms advantage should learn from this chap. Or simply he was not doing it from the bedroom...

  55. Fucking disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when the big American money-mongers do it systematically 24/7, then it's ok, but when someone else does it then they need to go in jail? Fucking disgusting.

  56. And the stock markets now have systems to catch it by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > But ebay would (or at least should) catch you if you did that a bunch of times.

    I suspect eBay would catch you after a while UNLESS you were clever. Certainly there are ways to set up a new eBay account under a new identity, I've done that. All you need is a different email address and maybe a new prepaid Visa. I have one eBay account for business-related transactions and one for personal. A clever person could probably find a way to keep setting up new accounts as old ones got locked.

    > If they allowed someone to commit that transaction thousands of times then it'd seriously undermine the entire platform.

    The guy is TFA DID seriously undermine the US stock market, for a short time, so the markets now have mechanisms to protect against a repeat. Some people, like Michael McCarthy, lost a lot of of money, as in stocks that normally trade for $100 were down to $10. Proctor and Gamble lost over 30% of it's value, then quickly recovered most of it.
    https://www.thestreet.com/stor...

  57. Everybody got screwed, not just HFT traders by raymorris · · Score: 1

    It really, really has nothing to do with high frequency traders. Lots of people got screwed. Michael McCarthy is a typical example:
    https://www.thestreet.com/stor...

    As I've explained in another post, people can run the exact same scam on eBay with iPhones, or "selling" F-150 pickups on Craigslist.

  58. wanst he trading in the FUTURE market? by aod7br · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. He posted selling orders in the FUTURE, right? So, the wall street computers followed his bait, BECAUSE THEY CHOSE SO, right? How is that HIS fault? This sounds like wall street saying "you are being punished by beating us at our game" or like we say in brazil: "perdeu e levou a bola para casa"

  59. nike tn 2016 pas cher by zhenbenhan · · Score: 1

    nike tn 2016 Depuis le hall d’entrée, elle voit l’ascenseur là, qui semble l’attendre, à battants ouverts. L’idée l’effleure à peine - le louper ! - que l’angoisse l’enserre. Mue par pur réflexe, elle se jette en une sorte de pas de course, imprécise et gauche, sur ses talons hauts, retenant son sac à longue bandoulière qui lui bat la cuisse. Elle se sent stupide et ridicule. Elle pouvait largement attendre l’arrivée du second appareil. Précipitée dans le hall, désert en cette heure matinale, elle sait bien, comme à son ordinaire, qu’elle arrive en avance à son rendez-vous.L’homme, à l’intérieur, l’a vue courir vers lui. Il presse le bouton qui commande le maintien des portes ouvertes. Dans sa course approximative, elle sent vriller sa cheville droite et trébuche.La honte l’envahit. Se jetant dans la cabine, échevelée, luisante, écarlate, elle se dit que la prochaine, peut-être, aurait été vide. Elle s’y serait retrouvée seule, tranquille.

  60. As a Brit I have little trouble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Brit I have little trouble with _this_ extradition though feel it's really what the banks pay these people to do.

    Did have a problem with the McKinnon attempted extradition though. The guy's harmless and just pointing out where stuff just wasn't even nearly secured. The people wanting legal action are in the U.S. military but will never happen.

  61. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, it is illegal to put a put and call order? Stop spreading fud!

  62. Re:Really quite simple: fraud, 19,000 times in 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No naked shorts if they enforced this for the big guys.

  63. Nest egg. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, if you are obtaining that amount of money you need to get a substantial amount of it in cash and other hard assets you can liquidate. get it under YOUR control, not the bank's.

    Second, why is it the banks can steal Trillions and not a single person gets arrested, but some little guy in his parents basement gets threats of 300+ years in prison?