Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Insider Trader Arrested After He Googled 'Insider Trading,' Authorities Allege

Posted by BeauHD on from the breadcrumb-trail dept.

Spy Handler writes: Fei Yan, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and 31-year-old Chinese citizen, was arrested by federal authorities on Wednesday on insider trading charges. Mr. Yan used Google to search for phrases such as "how sec detect unusual trade" and "insider trading with international account." He also allegedly read an article titled "Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not to Do It," according to the U.S. attorney prosecuting the case. Further reading: Associated Press, CNBC, USA Today

62 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really? Waiting for the crime here....

    1. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck. I just got arrested for clicking on this story.

    2. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Cyberglich · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA he made bank on 2 mergers last year that is wifes firm was involved in . Thats sketchy as hell. Add the searches to that and you have probable cause to do some major digging.

    3. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      He did trades on two different companies that were acquired. And presumably that's the only trades that account has done. And both were immediately very profitable. These are then flag as suspicious by SEC data analysis.
      The only connection they can find between the two is that the same law firm handled the acquisitions. They then find that the account is owned by a family member of someone at the law firm. They now have probably cause to issue warrants and get the search results?
      Ie. the search results are what are flagged him, not his wife, but the fact that insider trading was going on was discovered long before the search results.
      My impression of how it went anyway.

    4. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by will_die · · Score: 5, Informative

      Data analysis came up that investments made by some lady who lives in China were weird. Checking the phone calls to the brokerage company found they were coming from his phone. From there they found them being mother and son and then he was married to a lawyer involved in the legal work. Then they subpoenaed his searches from yahoo and google.

    5. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      He was also arrested after eating breakfast.

    6. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Thou shalt not steal... the gutter-mint don't like no competition.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    7. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 1

      Ah, seams reasonable. Admittedly I only read one of the articles, but it sounded like the searches triggered the investigation.

    8. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The lawyer will have a field day with searches for insider trading. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse (then why isn't everyone treated as a lawyer) so he had information which he thought might have been insider trading, so they did searches on the internet to make sure the trades they did would not break the law and well, they got it wrong. What authorities are claiming is if you are doing legal searches to not break the law, then you are breaking the law because the law claims no citizen has ignorance of any law or it's details or it's legal interpretation which by law are of equal skill to judges of the highest appointments. To search the law is not breaking the regardless of the absurdity of 'ignorance of the law is not excuse' no matter how obscure the law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So... he was charged with reading?

      If so then clearly you have nothing to worry about.

    10. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You were so right until about half way, then you turned into a shitpost.
      Authorities are claiming if you break the law, regardless of prior knowledge of the law, you broke the law. And that's it. You can try and argue about his intent here but if he had good intentions he would not have broke the law after reading about it. He had enough doubt about the legality of his actions that he searched it out online instead of getting real legal advice. Because he knew a real lawyer would call him out.

      This is why I said you shitpost. Because you brought in a secondary argument that has very little relevance and you resorted to basically rewording the same bad argument in a crazy run-on sentence followed by another confused sentence that says the same damn thing.

      Also, if you represent yourself you will be treated like a lawyer. You just won't know how to act like one. So you'll think they're treating you differently but in reality they would come down on an unprepared or incompetent lawyer just as bad.

    11. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      would you have clicked on the article if it had made that clear?

    12. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The linked story said he made 120k from insider information he got from his Wife who is a lawyer working in a law firm.

      Quite clear cut. The searches he did is proof of intent. The search is not the crime.

    13. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      He was also arrested after eating breakfast.

      Because he was a cereal killer?

    14. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      And you were so right, but someone modded you into oblivion.
      It's like he got up halfway though writing the post to take a shit and when he got back he brought the shit with him. Would also help if you didn't post as AC.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    15. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      "Yanâ(TM)s wife worked as an associate at the international firm Linklaters, which is based in London. Linklaters was working on acquisition deals involving the two companies Yan profited from"

      He made $120,000 by trading on firms that were involved in acquisitions that his wife was handling. And then he searched for ways to get away with insider trading.

      What part of that doesn't look like a goddamn crime to you?

    16. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by hesiod · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've also read quite a bit about nuclear and biological weapons...

      If you read that and then promptly created some biological weapons, it definitely DOES prove intent.

    17. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by espre · · Score: 1

      So... he was charged with reading?

      If so then clearly you have nothing to worry about.

      Huh, the person may not comprehend your sarcasm either! :)

    18. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Straight from the CNBC article: "Prosecutors say Yan searched "how sec detect unusual trade" before he bought numerous stocks and options that netted him around $120,000 in illicit profits."

      Fucking "Spy Handler" and BeauHD left that important bit out of the clickbait summary just to make things sound a whole lot more inflammatory than they really are and get some views and outraged comments onto this once-popular but now dying former tech news site.

    19. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      "... it definitely DOES prove intent." Or curiosity.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    20. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      He's also an inside trader, you insensitive clod!

    21. Re:So... he was charged with reading? by whitlocktj · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps his insinuation is that this guy clearly didn't read the article.

    22. Re: So... he was charged with reading? by martinX · · Score: 1

      The real crime was the story summary posted on Slashdot. For crimes against communication like this, the people need to be represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the police, who investigate crime; and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  2. How did they get his searches? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's what I want to know. Just like that missing person case in PA unfolding right now where it turns they caught the guy because they had him and his victims recorded in a license plate recorder somewhere.

    1. Re:How did they get his searches? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      They got them after seizing his computer, after he was arrested on the charges. He wasn't arrested because of the searches.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  3. He's a research SCIENTIST by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was doing it for, you know, science, and not business?

    1. Re:He's a research SCIENTIST by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      The arrest was for insider trading, so presumably he was insider trading, the Google searches are just part of the evidence. I'd like to think we still live in a world where the search history was obtained as a result of a warrant in an investigation that was already underway based on other credible evidence. But who knows these days, the government seems to have a conduit into the major internet companies, and they may have triggered the investigation based on the searches.

      The headline is correct, he was arrested after the made those searches, which he did before he apparently committed the crime which drew enough suspicion for him to be investigated. I find it amusing to read the posts of idiots who fall for the headline without even the slightest hint of critical thinking.

    2. Re:He's a research SCIENTIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The headline is factually correct, but misleading. He was arrested after he googled about insider trading, but he was not arrested for googling about insider trading. TFA makes it clear that he was arrested after he was suspected of insider trading in companies his wife was connected to, using an account in his mother's name.

  4. Why did Google turn him in? by drnb · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why did Google report the searches to the SEC? Did he short their stock or something? ;-)

    1. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did Google report the searches to the SEC? Did he short their stock or something? ;-)

      Google didn't report it, they found that he did those searches after they were already looking at him, at least that is what the article implies since it is scant on details. My question though is how they know about the searches? Was it forensics on his computer, or did they get the search history from Google? I'm betting the former.

    2. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good point. The police likely found the search queries in his browser history.

      I hope that was the case. Because the alternative that anyone under investigation is granted a search warrant to look through the petabytes of information Google collects on all of us would be really over the top.

    3. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by will_die · · Score: 2

      After tracing the trades to him. He made phone calls to the brokerage firm and they found that the name on the account was his mother. They subpoenaed his search results on google and yahoo. I would guess that is now standard procedure.

    4. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by will_die · · Score: 2

      Look at https://myactivity.google.com/... if given a user name does not look like it is hard for google to display what you did.

    5. Re:Why did Google turn him in? by swillden · · Score: 1

      Look at https://myactivity.google.com/... if given a user name does not look like it is hard for google to display what you did.

      No, but Google won't provide that data without a search warrant or subpoena, properly issued by a court. In a criminal case like this, they'd have to have probable cause to think there's evidence in his search history before the court would issue the warrant needed to get it from Google.

      It's more likely they got a warrant to search his computer, and found the searches in the browser history.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  5. Re: What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well you know if you read the book and made a bomb and blew up the neighbors mailvox with it, you'd probably get in trouble for it. Just like how this guy looked up how to cover up insider trading and went ahead and made 2 insider trades that he profited from.

    I swear the /. commenters get dumber each day.

  6. Re:What did he DO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These are click-bait submissions, lovingly crafted to incite our holy anger towards the transgressions against the rule of law.

  7. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > Answer the goddamn question instead of modding me down

    Why not both?

    > Why should I or anyone else give a fuck that this stupid shit got arrested?

    Because it shows that searches can be snooped through, and during an investigation, are. Because standards about privacy and technology that start out being used against the worst criminals are then used against all criminals and then later against non-criminals, and we are in stage 2 of 3. It is a solid argument for a secure connection to a search engine, possibly through a VPN or other anonymizer. Because a search engine log is thought by most to be simply an interface to find something out, instead of an ironclad Log Of Your Intentions. Because it requires readers to think about this before doing things that are perfectly legal.

  8. Yeah by Ryanrule · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need a new dilbert cartoon. The creator can fuck off though.

    1. Re:Yeah by Dwedit · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://dilbert.com/strip/2011-...

    2. Re:Yeah by ckatko · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, I also hate people who don't believe the exact things I do. They always challenge my worldview by bringing their "alternative facts" into the discussion. I'm smart. If I was wrong, I'd already know it.

    3. Re:Yeah by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      Is this ironic or not?

      There are so many possible ways so interpret it.

    4. Re:Yeah by Raenex · · Score: 1

      He doesn't give a fuck who won.

      I've been reading/watching him for a while, and he clearly favored Trump. He even explicitly endorsed him.

    5. Re:Yeah by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Scott Adams is more interesting than Dilbert. It's still a good comic, but it's old hat.

  9. Title is misleading. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Informative

    After flagging the trades as suspicious through data analysis, the SEC traced them back to Yan.

    The SEC was already on his trail by the time they found out about his search history.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Title is misleading. by swillden · · Score: 1

      After flagging the trades as suspicious through data analysis, the SEC traced them back to Yan.

      The SEC was already on his trail by the time they found out about his search history.

      then it should be safe for you to google "insider trading", right? well, why don't you try it and see? go ahead. we're waiting.

      Okay, I did. I got a dictionary definition, plus Investopedia and Wikipedia links to explanations of it. I clicked those. I didn't bother with any of the other links.

      Just to be sure I googled "How to get away with insider trading" and "How to cover up evidence of insider trading", and clicked some of those links, too.

      Now what?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  10. Remember kiddos by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's not insider trading if a member of Congress did it (or if it happens at a Country Club). Those billionaire investors are just really, really skilled and you're just jealous. Above all the game is not rigged. Nothing to see. Move along.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Remember kiddos by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      If wanna get in on the billionaire insider action, just buy Berkshire Hathaway shares. Warren Buffet knows a lot of shit that you don't, he's got connections. So when he makes money, YOU make money.

    2. Re:Remember kiddos by nctritech · · Score: 1

      That statement reminds me of Congressional healthcare plans. I bet the wacky laws regarding healthcare with no solution in sight get fixed real fast if Congress has to purchase theirs through the Obamacare exchanges like every other citizen.

  11. Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not to! by locater16 · · Score: 2

    Step 1: Don't use your standard work or personal computer, in non incgonito or otherwise browser history tracking mode, to Google, with your google account signed in, phrases such as "Insider trading", "how sec detect unusual trade", or however it is you googled this article to begin with... you dumbass.

  12. Re:Want to Commit Insider Trading? Here's How Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just don't.

  13. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    >How the fuck is this news? Why should I or anyone else give a fuck that this stupid shit got arrested?

    So why did you click on the post, and why did you go through the effort to post this rant?

    Seems you care more than you thought. :)

  14. Hmmm by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing I'm not a criminal, because if they look at my search history over the years they will find all sorts of queries that any reasonably intelligent and therefore curious person could make. I guess this is just the prosecutor trick of finding every single scrap of dirt on the guy being prosecuted and building a case, but I'm pretty sure that not everyone who hypothetically looks up how to make explosives actually makes explosives... otherwise this planet is in deep trouble.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Hmmm by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      https://www.theatlantic.com/na... He googled at work and they turned him in.

  15. Didn't work for Bernie Ward. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Maybe he was doing it for, you know, science, and not business?

    Claiming he was doing "research on a book about hypocrisy in America" didn't keep Bernie Ward from being convicted of distributing child pornography.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  16. Re:What did he DO? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    our holy anger towards the transgressions against the rule of law.

    It's 2017. Rule of Law is an outdated concept.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. Hang on a minute by waynemcdougall · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'll read the fine article as a nice break from my assignment on file system design.

    I'll just close this tab on "Everything Hans Reiser Did Wrong and What to Avoid"

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  18. Re: He Has A Second Charge Against Him by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You should look up the word "encyclopedia" in the dictionary.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  19. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by nctritech · · Score: 1

    It also shows that the government routinely uses third parties to get around your constitutional rights and collect information on you. This is why laws that make your data your property (for search and seizure and legal proceeding purposes) even when on someone else's server are needed. Your internet search history being demanded is something that they should have to let you defend against, not a third party like Google that has no interest in the matter.

  20. Better sources by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    https://www.reuters.com/articl...

    https://www.sec.gov/litigation...

  21. Re:No one gives a flying fuck about this by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    > a search engine log is thought by most to be simply an interface to find something out, instead of an ironclad Log Of Your Intentions

    Thank you for the succinct insight.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  22. Re:Based on what I read on the Internet... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    He's dead now.

  23. Re: What did he DO? by subanark · · Score: 1

    That's a bad analogy. Try this one:

    A person's house caught on fire, and they filed for an insurance claim. An investigation found the person had checked out a book titled "Plausible Deniability - How to get money from insurance". An example in the book matched the house fire. The fact the book was checked out is used as evidence that the house fire was not an accident.