Posted by Nikolina Stojkovic.
Insider trading just got a little easier, if you can use the right defense. Based on the case United States v. Newman, insider trading charges were dropped based on what was considered wrong jury instruction and failure to show sufficient evidence for conviction. The case was tried in a New York district court. New York has joined the cavalry in trying to take down Wall Street crimes. US Attorney General Preet Bharara took office about six years ago and arrested 100 people for insider trading, of whom 87 have been convicted1.
A little background of the case will help demonstrate what defense attorneys were able to accomplish in appeals. In January 2012, hedge fund portfolio managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson were charged with securities fraud. In December 2012, they were convicted and, in May 2013, sentenced to lengthy terms: 54 months for Newman and 78 months for Chiasson1 for using information tipped to them about Dell and Nvidia via an intermediary. Newman earned $4 million and Chiasson earned $68 million as a result of the information received.2 The charges were overturned because the prosecution never linked a personal benefit received by the original tipper, not because Newman/Chiasson denied receiving the information.
According to the defense, their clients did not commit any crime because the tipper received no known benefit of relaying the information, nor did the intermediaries that passed along the information to Newman and Chiasson. Rather, their actions were part of a business transaction based on information received. It sure sounds like insider trading without the benefit requirement.
Nonetheless, the appeals court decided otherwise. Their decision spurred a flurry of review on pending and previously decided cases, where guilty verdicts were found and admissions of guilt were allowed on insider trading matters. Based on the defense attorney’s argument, insider trading cases will become more challenging for the US Attorney General’s office. In this matter, based on the charges, the defendants are not guilty. However, had the tipper received quid pro quo in exchange for the information, Newman and the like, would be guilty of insider trading. Quid pro quo seems trivial in the matter, either you acted upon the information or you didn’t.
Nikolina is a graduate student in accounting with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.
Sources:
1 http://fortune.com/2015/09/23/supreme-court-insider-trading-newman
2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/insider-trading-cases-imperiled-as-top-u-s-court-spurns-appeal