We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
17

You are mostly mistaken. Prior to the enactment of the STOCK Act in 2012 (as amended in 2013), insider trading by members of Congress based upon information obtained in their official duties was legal. This is no longer the case, but there is no private cause of action to enforce the STOCK Act. Instead, the principal means by which violations are enforced is ...


11

There is no statutory definition of insider trading, and the question of who is included is answered by the SEC. It includes "Government employees who traded based on confidential information they learned because of their employment with the government". Under 5 USC 2105, POTUS is an "employee", though that is w.r.t. Title 5 and insider trading laws are ...


8

First of all, this is not insider trading: insider trading is using non-public information to trade a publicly tradable security. What this could be is misuse of confidential information - a civil tort. The disclaimer does not create a legally binding contract for a number of reasons but it does alert the recipient that the information is confidential: if ...


6

This is not insider trading To be an insider in the USA you must be a company officer, director or a beneficial owner of more than 10% of a class of the company's equity securities. You aren’t any of those. Or you are an “insider” if you trade based on non-public information in breach of a position of trust. The company’s lawyers and accountants, for ...


4

No, insider trading doesn't apply to private companies. By definition private companies don't trade their stock on the open market. Trading on the open market provides access to an immense pool of capital (anyone with the price of a share of stock), but the trade-off is that there are many more strictures on corporate behavior and governance. Private ...


4

Your question assumes that there is a method to find a block of bitcoins with a faster computation than the brute force method used so far. If such a faster calculation method exists, it is proprietary to the mathematics and our superhero has not invented it, he just discovered it and used it. It is not an insider trading case since everybody has the ...


4

No, because leaking is also a form of insider trading if the person you leak to takes advantage of the information. Even if you leaked it in a public forum you still have to wait 6 months before it is considered truly public knowledge, and by that time you might have learned something else. If you think that Company X is going to be pulled down along with ...


4

The accusation would be the crime of securities fraud ("insider trading" is legally meaningless), under 15 USC 78j(b). There is a bit more elaboration in 17 CFR 240.10b5-1. That law prohibits using "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in" in connection with a securities transaction. Under 15 USC 78ff, violation of the law can result in ...


4

Insiders, such as a CEO, are allowed set up predetermined trading plans to avoid accusations of insider trading: Rule 10b5-1 is established by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to allow insiders of publicly traded corporations to set up a trading plan for selling stocks they own. Rule 10b5-1 allows major holders to sell a predetermined ...


3

In the US, "insider trading" includes both legal and illegal versions. When a corporate employee buys or sells shares of their company, they are insiders and they are trading (there is a requirement to report to the government). The illegal version involves breach of fiduciary duty or confidence. The relevant section of the federal regulations is 17 CFR 240....


3

It’s not insider trading Insider trading refers to leveraging private information that you only know because of your “insider” position. Front running is using information that is publicly available, albeit for a fee. Buying information that anyone can buy is not insider trading.


2

Trading on non-public information is not, per se, illegal. There are many statutes and regulations that attempt to restrict or outlaw "trading on insider information," but those are not only fraught with ambiguity but also subject to a great deal of criticism. This is a subject of ongoing debate, as well as frequent regulatory and statutory revision. (...


2

Trading is not only purchasing stock expecting it to increase in value. Trading also involves shorting a market (planing on a stock falling). What you are describing, would still be trading based on knowledge the public does not have. Just because it's not trading the company you are employed at, that doesn't not make it insider trading.


2

Is it still insider trading if from the outside with no breach of trust? No, because "insider trading is the abuse of a fiduciary position" Fry v. UAL Corp., 84F.3d 936, 938 (1996). Furthermore, Chiarella v. U.S., 445 U.S. 222, 232 (1980) refutes the notion that "[t]he use by anyone of material information not generally available is ...


2

Legal framework In england-and-wales, the offence of insider dealing is covered by Part 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. The relevant provisions are set out below. First, the definition of insider dealing which is relevant to the scenario: 52(1) An individual who has information as an insider is guilty of insider dealing if, in the circumstances ...


1

The terminology is different, but there are analogous concepts that aren't about shares in publicly traded companies. Jurisdictions generally have laws designed to resolve / prevent "conflict of interest". There is a big section of Washington law that regulates ethics in public service. Therefore, the Chief of the Washington State Patrol cannot ...


1

Because you're acting on private information that the average trader doesn't have. How is it fair for you to do that? You do understand that when you sell stock, it doesn't just vanish into the aether. Some other sucker buys it. You have a duty of honesty and disclosure to the buyer, Just like when you sell anything. Your aim was to not fulfill your duty ...


1

This is not insider information. Inside information is information received from the Company or an employee or agent of the company that has not been publicly disclosed. So, it does not violate federal insider trading laws. It is conceivable that the search engine operator might have a contractual duty to to the company, for example, a non-disclosure ...


1

is there any legal problem with Google (and loads of others with large amounts of user data) actively investing/trading based on this data? No. By way of analogy, consider a scenario where many, many random people in the street casually tell you that they are about to purchase a Tesla vehicle. There would be no legal impediment for you to buy Tesla shares ...


1

Yes You’re right that it isn’t ‘insider trading’ - the correct name for it is ‘market research’ and that’s totally legal.


1

There is no general prohibition against using non-public information in making decisions about securities transactions. If as a home scientist you discover a flaw in some software where that flaw will cause the share price to plummet, or if you know that the CEO of some social media company has done something antisocial that is going to cause the company to ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible