[pc86]

One thing I've always wondered about this is how to handle circumstantial evidence. Let's say you have a relative who may have insider information on a stock. You talk sometimes but not regularly. They call you (as they occasionally do) the day before you trade a stock and it performs favorably within a short time period.

Are you now in a position where you have to prove a negative? Are there people in prison right now because of exactly this type of occurrence, or is it so circumstantial that it's not even pursued unless there is additional evidence, e.g. you always buy $500-1k in stock but after this call you buy $10k in options or something.

[rrrrrrrrrrrryan]

According to one of my finance professors in university, it's somewhat tough to actually get convicted for insider trading, and there are certain circles where everyone does it.

The people who do get convicted are usually those who were being particularly egregious or who pissed someone off enough to rat them out. For example, Martha Stewart got convicted because her assistant (whom she regularly called a "little shit") decided to testify against her.