Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by notch656a on Tuesday August 16, 2022 @08:06PM
(#32490707)
>Palmer's friend netted approximately $35,000 and $73,000 in profits
Yeah I'd like to see proof that's actually all there is, rather than all they were able to charge them with. It's not as if those involved in financial related crimes are always honest about finances, and it could be they only gave up the portions where they figured out the feds were going to find.
Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by gruez on Tuesday August 16, 2022 @08:11PM
(#32490746)
>Yeah I'd like to see proof that's actually all there is, rather than all they were able to charge them with.
doesn't this require proving a negative? If they got charged, presumably the feds combed through their bank records and found any unexplained deposits. You could argue that they had the real loot in some numbered offshore account and/or crypto that's totally unlinked to them, but I'm not sure how you'd prove that those accounts don't exist.
Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by halfmatthalfcat on Tuesday August 16, 2022 @08:10PM
(#32490735)
One could assume that the SEC (or any legal entity with investigative powers) will do their own due diligence and in this case, will do their own forensic accounting investigation into these two to corroborate their story.
Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by BolexNOLA on Tuesday August 16, 2022 @07:53PM
(#32490620)
He’s clearly just grinding his axe about government. Probably not worth engaging him tbh.
[dead]
Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by eyelidlessness on Tuesday August 16, 2022 @08:05PM
(#32490701)
I reached the same conclusion from your comment and afaik I’ve never encountered you before (and if I have it wasn’t very memorable, sorry bud)
Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by eyelidlessness on Wednesday August 17, 2022 @12:29AM
(#32492370)
Can’t edit the comment now. To the person above, I’m easy to find and contact, feel free to avail yourself if you have something you want to say. That’s not an invitation for abuse, but I’m considerably more open minded to expressing and hearing strong emotions than I feel comfortable doing or expect to be kosher here. Have at it. As long as you’re not threatening me, I’ll read what you have to say.
Re:SEC Charges Three with Insider Trading Around Equifax Dat...
by notch656a on Wednesday August 17, 2022 @09:51AM
(#32496376)
You said you came to the same "conclusion" ("not worth engaging tbh" said OP). So now you admit that your comment was a lie, and that you do want to engage. Not really interested now though, someone who one moment believes I'm not worthy of engaging but the next moment pretends they are an open and interested communicator ready and receptive to communication is quite the mood swing on your end. This is the last I desire to ever interact with you, and I'll give you the benefit of the result there would be had your comment actually been truth: have a nice life and I promise never to intentionally contact you again.
> Additionally, the final judgment against L. Palmer would order him to disgorge $9,000 plus prejudgment interest of $2,026, and pay a civil penalty of $88,698. The final judgment against J. Palmer would order him to disgorge $28,000 plus prejudgment interest of $6,303, and pay a civil penalty of $73,399. The litigation as to Dishinger remains pending.
In no sense was it "worth it for them."