Posted on 10/28/2019 9:30:53 AM PDT by outpostinmass2
So what? Stewart was guilty of insider trading (I’m a stockbroker myself). Take off the blinders.
She was found guilty because of who she was not because of what she did.
You is ...
You are completely deluding yourself. This is MY BUSINESS. She ADMITTED to trading illegally based on the tip she got during an airplane ride. She spent TEN YEARS as a licensed stockbroker. The SEC will ALWAYS hold those of us who are/were licensed to a HIGHER STANDARD when sentencing for insider trading. If you can’t accept these facts that’s your problem.
OF those who are actually guilty of insider trading during the course of a year what fraction are prosecuted and convicted?
Not enough. SEC budgets have not risen and a lot of their time has gone into the crappy paperwork reviews that have proliferated, with little benefit to those new rules. And the insider trading gets a lower priority now.
And sometimes a prosecution should not have occurred. I’m one of the few Trump supporters that has hated Giuliani for a long time because he went overboard when he was a prosecutor to make his name and career. One name in particular was Timothy Tabor, who was arrested and perp-walked by Giuliani’s office as a 29-year old in the 80’s and after 18 months wasn’t even prosecuted. HE was innocent. But his life was ruined. As a 29-year old.
I thought Phil Mickelson should have not been given a plea bargain last year and should have had the same punishment that Huffman got recently. Even a little jail time would go a long way to make an example of these celebs who end up getting caught and paying a fine instead.
But remember, Stewart spent TEN YEARS as a stockbroker, she knew better. That’s why she went to jail for that long.
My point is that Stuart was targeted not because she was guilty (which I believe you she was), but because she as a highly visible, rich (and presumably envied by leftist the live in your parents’ basement till you’re 48 set) would bring more publicity for the prosecutor.
Note the bold (she wasn't eventually jailed for insider trading but the COVER UP by LYING to the investigators):
Martha Stewart's Insider Trading Trial and Sentencing The case against Martha Stewart proved to be more complicated than first imagined. Over the course of the investigation and trial, it came to light that Stewart had acted on a piece of nonpublic information, but that the information was not explicit knowledge of the FDA's decision about ImClone's drug approval. Stewart had actually acted upon a tip from her Merrill Lynch broker, Peter Bacanovic, whom also worked with Waskal. Bacanovic knew that Waskal was attempting to unload his large stake in his company, and while he did not know precisely why, he tipped Stewart off on Waksal's actions which lead to the selling of her shares.
For Stewart to be charged with insider trading, it would have to be proved that she acted upon nonpublic information. Had Stewart traded based on knowledge of the FDA decision, the case would have been strong, but Stewart only knew that Waskal had sold his shares. To build a strong insider trading case then, it would have to be proved that the sale violated some duty of Stewart's to refrain from trading based on the information. Not being a board member or otherwise affiliated with ImClone, Stewart did not hold such a duty. She did, however, act on a tip that she knew breached her broker's duty. In essence, it could be proved that she knew her actions were questionable at the very least and illegal at the worst.
Ultimately, these unique facts surrounding the case against Stewart led to prosecutors to focus on the series of lies Stewart told to cover the facts surrounding her trade. Stewart was sentenced to 5 months of prison time for obstruction of justice and conspiracy after the insider trading charges were dropped and securities fraud charges dismissed. In addition to the prison sentence, Stewart also settled with the SEC on a separate, but related case in which she paid a fine of four times the amount of the loss she avoided plus interest, which came to a whopping total of $195,000. She was also forced to step down as CEO from her company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, for a duration of five years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.