Mark Cuban Charged With Insider Trading 176
geekboy_x writes "The SEC today charged Mark Cuban with insider trading violations, alleging that he divested himself of stock in mamma.com before the stock was diluted via a public offering." Something tells me that the billionaire blogger won't be talking about this one publicly any time soon.
why should we care? (Score:5, Insightful)
for all i can tell, the guy registered "broadcast.com" in the 90s, created a pretty business plan, and sold out for billions at exactly the right time, and bought a basketball team
i applaud his timing and his luck and success, but i haven't the faintest idea as to why anything this guy ever did is of any interest to slashdot
Re:why should we care? (Score:1, Insightful)
Including harnessing P2P for infrastructure, while publicly championing the technique's place on the Internet despite network operator and copyright holder intererence. He's also spoken influentially for realistic revisions to copyright, contrary to some of his obvious interests as a major copyright holder, as an informed Internet business guru.
Um...What? [arstechnica.com]
Spin-Doctoring at its best. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Cuban commits SEC fraud, and we're supposed to ignore it because he's anti-Bush and it was 4 years ago?
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Insightful)
"Insider trading" can be very vauge and edge cases aren't clearly defined by statute or case law. Martha Stewart wasn't convicted of insider trading, she was convicted for obstruction of justice during the investigation (which might not have madei t to trial). If he shuts up, doesn't lie, and doesn't try to destroy evidence, he'll find it a lot easier to stay out of jail.
Re:Communism at work. (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you should learn what Communism actually is, before making an ass of yourself here?
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, especially when Bush has a political crusade at stake.
I like Mark Cuban, and I can totally believe the Bush administration is trumping up charges against him. That said, your quote is one of my pet peeves, and is DEAD WRONG.
In America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. The public at large is perfectly within its rights to judge anyone anyway it wants to. For example, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his first trial, yet I have no doubt he performed the crime.
All too often people in power and/or defense attorneys try and manipulate the public with the "innocent until proven guilty" junk. "Don't rush to judgment on my client just because he was seen with a smoking gun in his hand, remember, we're all innocent until proven guilty!" No, I'm under no obligation to judge people based on courtroom rules used to "prove" guilt. I can judge people based on whatever criteria seems reasonable to me.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. She was convicted of lying to investigators when she wasn't under oath and hadn't been warned that what she said might be used against her. Not only that, what she lied about must not have been a crime because she was never charged with anything else.
Now we know: never talk to the feds unless your lawyer's present, even if you don't think you've done anything against the law.
Re:Communism at work. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think he meant "wrong" not in a legal context but in a moral context; his argument thus leading, "neither of these two things are really wrong and should not be illegal".
Re:Spin-Doctoring at its best. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, I didn't say ignore it, and I didn't say he's not guilty - or that he's guilty.
I just said that the timing should make us suspicious of who and what is really ordering this prosecution. Especially since Bush crippled the "Justice" Department by using it for selective prosecution of political enemies, and this suit would be perfectly consistent with that. And because the bailout is a $TRILLION (or several) ripoff of your money, further crippling your government. Even if you can't understand the politics behind the attack, the implications of it should alarm you enough to pay attention, not to ignore anything.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retaliation for Cuban's Anti-Bailout Website? (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps your country will look less like a fascist dictatorship and more like other western countries.
Re:Wrong, He Has a Blog Post On It (Score:4, Insightful)
Now everyone who read this send me $200 for legal services rendered.
Can AND WILL Be Used Against You (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the lesson I take from it is don't lie to the feds without a lawyer present. (And even then...)
Anything you say that turns out not to be true, even if you don't know it, "can and will be used against you in a court of law." Anything you say that helps you is inadmissible [youtube.com] as 'hearsay'.
So if you do a two hour interview, are thoroughly truthful except for 15 seconds, which you may or may not know is not true, the jury will only know about those 15 seconds. Somebody file a bug.