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 ...


9

The ultimate question is whether an obviously joke enterprise constitutes a real offering of securities or just performance art (a Ponzi scheme is one of many types of securities fraud). An unregistered offering of securities that does not fall within an exception is per se unlawful under federal law, but a security is generally defined as something offered ...


8

It is true that a shareholder who controls a majority of the votes can be quite powerful indeed. This is a somewhat murky area of the law, but in many cases, a majority shareholder has a fiduciary duty to do what is best for the corporation as a whole (not just the majority shareholder, but all shareholders), an obligation that logically parallels the ...


5

According to Wikipedia: A wash trade is a form of market manipulation in which an investor simultaneously sells and buys the same financial instruments to create misleading, artificial activity in the marketplace.[1] First, an investor will place a sell order, then place a buy order to buy from himself, or vice versa. ... Wash trading has been illegal in ...


5

It's always amazing to me why some people find it so difficult to understand, just because the word "crypto" is involved. It goes like this: Cryptocurrency is an asset, like any other asset. It's also a currency, but that part can be ignored for this purpose. Buying an asset, any asset, is (usually) not a taxable event. "Buying" in this case consists of ...


5

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 ...


5

It would be a violation of 18 USC 1001, which is the law against making false statements to the federal government. Paul Mozer, who was a Salomon Brothers trader, received a four month sentence for doing something along those lines in 1994. Bidding on something implies an intent to pay for the thing, which in this case is a falsehood: in so doing, one "...


5

The President wouldn't be in breach of Insider Trading Laws (Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act) since he has no information resulting from a position of trust within Twitter (or as a trusted provider of services) and no ability to depress their stocks through intentionally fraudulent practices. [O]ne who fails to disclose material information ...


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 ...


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

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

As long as what you are posting is factual, public knowledge then you shouldn't be in violation of any SEC rules. Short-selling in-and-of itself is perfectly legal, so is exercising your right to free speech, in so far as the things you say are true and known. Now if you made up some story about Musk and it caused the stock to fall where you gain, this could ...


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 ...


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.


3

Is she allowed to short the stocks of some company trading in this other metal, before she publishes her result ? Generally speaking, yes. The main exceptions consist of her being under certain form of fiduciary duty toward the company of which she is shorting stock, or (2) her transactions being motivated by superior knowledge resembling insider trading or ...


3

It should be legal (though I can't find an analogous case where the court has ruled that it is). There is a regulation summarizing the government's position (thus, what will be enforced in 17 CFR 240.10b, which prohibits use of "manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" in stock trading. Section 240.10b5-1 says: The “manipulative and deceptive ...


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

If you plan to defend defamation with truth, the onus is on you to prove truth Because truth is an affirmative defence, the onus is on the defendant to prove it, not on the prosecution to prove falsehood. You mention in a comment that the CTO “admitted fraud”. If you were to accuse the CTO or the company of fraud (a crime, so defamation per see) you would ...


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

There are several ways that a company can be subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The basic threshold is involvement in interstate commerce in the United States, which is a very low one and is probably satisfied simply by incorporating in the United States and having U.S. shareholders. In general there are also practical reasons ...


2

Legally, executives do not have a fiduciary duty to their company - they are employees and this does not create a fiduciary relationship. However, directors do have a fiduciary duty so I will assume that is what you mean. This duty is to the company - it is not to the shareholders individually or collectively. The market capitalisation of the company ...


2

Potentially applicable would be SEC rules 10b5-1 and 10b5-2, which would prevent certain individuals from buying or selling securities, if you have material private information (such as "I plan to give up on them, which will probably cause a dip in value"). These rules don't prohibit everyone from acting on the basis of what they know: there has to exist a ...


2

The issue is whether the discloser shorting the stock has engaged in securities fraud of some kind. In the case of a publicly traded company (which seems to be implied in the question), under U.S. law, the answer would generally be that this is not illegal. "Insider trading" is prohibited, which generally involves confidential information obtained by the ...


2

Which Companies Are Covered By SOX? When exactly does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act apply to a company? The provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (a.k.a. SOX) sometimes apply to "issuers" (i.e. companies that are going public pursuant to the 1933 Securities Act and companies that have already gone public which are regulated by the 1934 Securities ...


2

If you are seriously considering that as a business model, hire a specialist lawyer in your jurisdiction. You will need him or her. Usually, selling or licensing software would make the customer responsible for operating it lawfully. The programmer/vendor could still be held responsible if using it is illegal and there is a conspiracy, or if the software is ...


1

Normally, the term "bond" is used to refer to the standardized promissory note of a company or government (the "issuer" of the bond) in exchange for money loaned by the original "purchaser" of the bond, who is not necessarily a financial company or bank. The rights of bondholders are governed by default rules of law that can usually be varied in the ...


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