At the same time, noone is doing eight figures transactions which require reporting to the SEC without talking to a lawyer. Right? Right? They really dislike insider trading, it's one of the few things where even rich people can get imprisoned -- and the typical jail sentence has been steadily climbing up for decades now.
Insider trading, like many white-collar crimes, exists primarily for its value as a weapon. There is nothing actually illegal about the act of selling a stock; it's all about casting aspirations as to intent and who-knew-what-when.
In other situations, intent is usually an aggravating factor, enhancement, or affirmative defense. It is not the thing that qualifies an otherwise 100% legitimate act as a bad thing.
My anecdotal, unsubstantiated perspective is that insider trading is unlikely to be an issue for anyone who hasn't made enemies, and that it may suddenly become an issue for anyone naive enough to make enemies recklessly. cf. Martin Shkreli, who couldn't be linked to a specific "bad trade" so was brought on generic "securities fraud" instead.
Not playing ball with the people wielding these powers seems to be the dangerous thing.
Yes, mens rea is an important consideration, but it's nuanced. Check the Model Penal Code [0], which identifies four differing types of mens rea, including negligence and recklessness; that is, a "guilty mind" (mens rea), for criminal purposes, does not necessarily require what would be conventionally considered bona fide malice or intent to harm.
What I meant when I said an "enhancement" or "aggravating factor" is that usually you have an objectively asocial actus reus, like theft, and should mens rea come into play, it's generally a defensive thing seeking to exculpate the accused, as in "I didn't know it belonged to someone else" (the affirmative defense), not to deny the act.
But with insider trading and other instances of nuanced malum prohibitum [1], the usual relationship between actus reus and mens rea is inverted. To make the crime, one starts with the mens rea, the bad intent, and must identify (or, if necessary, manufacture) an apparently-normal act to register as the external offensive conduct that harmed society and warrants legal action.
That is a scarier proposition because if your daily business involves technical acts that can be converted into actus reus, there's obviously going to be ample opportunity for people to assign and rationalize their preferred ideas about your thought process there and convince themselves that you're a criminal based on their personal level of dislike or offense. If this gets brought in court, your defense will amount to convincing the jury to believe you instead of the prosecutor, which is a straight-up likability and performance contest.
Whereas, with better-defined crimes, there is a physical, independent actus reus that people recognize as objectively bad and probably intentional. If you didn't steal the thing, if they can't show that you stole the thing, that's now the ground that you're fighting over, and that's much better for the defendant because it's much less fickle.
Essentially it makes every defense necessarily affirmative because the conduct is not otherwise unlawful. The government must dislike you enough to assume bad faith first.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code#Mens_rea_or_c... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malum_prohibitum
And what the SEC can prove and what they can't, I do not claim to be an authority of.
I doubt the CEO is exactly shaking in his boots or sold for that reason. I'd even be willing to bet Intel will provide a fix on the hardware and continue to use the same sockets so cloud providers can just change them out without further hardware changes.
Intel's stock will probably trade down to 40, fill the gap and continue its uptrend, largely because the market is very bullish on the chip space right now.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/INTC/insider-transactions?p=...
The marvel is that somehow the news was kept from hitting the media until he had finished his trade, and then was revealed immediately after the transaction was complete. I wonder how that coincidence happened.
The sell could also have been scheduled in advance, which would - AFAIK - not violate any insider trading regulations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Rule_10b5-1#A_possible_loo...
It gets filed with the SEC so should be suitably permanent
Edit: Here's trustworthy reporting on that action that also predates this announcement: https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/19/intels-ceo-just-so...
Intel has a rule where c-suite and up execs who have been at the company 5+ years must hold a minimum amount of stock. For the CEO, that number is 250,000. The CEO recently exercised options and immediately sold them, holding onto the absolute minimum required (250k).
This is all available on the SEC's website, trades like this are reported to the SEC and are considered public information.
Apparently, Microsoft has been releasing patches for NT since November, so it isn't exactly predating the bug.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider-trades
Most of trades are "automatic sells" which should mean the trades were setup days in advance. And the selling was reported on the back of the Intel issue only.
The SEC could look at internal emails he got about this flaw, and if he got them (and especially if he replied to them) then it's pretty clear he knew about it.
They doubtlessly have other investigative tools they can use for this as well.
Its impossible for him to not know something that is this serious.
If he actually did knew about this, then this is a proof of some serious incompetence.