[FabHK]

Eh? That's not the argument. The argument is that an FT editor couldn't keep his mouth shut ~and was complicit in insider trading.~

The other (baseless) accusations you're talking about (and that led BaFin to investigate the FT) are extensively covered in the book.

Edit: Not sure it was insider trading, or illegal. Just probably not in line with FT standards.

[Topgamer7]

I'm pretty ignorant of this issue.

But if the trade came up as a matter of an investigator researching a company, and communicating with people about the details. Even if they disclosed the exact time they planned on publishing this information, is it insider trading?

Wouldn't you have to been privy to information from inside the company itself? Otherwise anybody could have investigated this person, and had equal opportunity to discover negative things to expose?

[namdnay]

Given FT had no financial interest in wirecard I’m not sure it’s insider trading? Breach of the code of conduct of FT and basic journalistic ethics of course, but using investigators to find out bad things about companies and using that information to trade is pretty normal and not insider trading

[ahtihn]

Knowing that a negative article will be published about another company is not insider information?

[hef19898]

You do know that there is a difference between letting information slip and actively participating in insider trading?

[currymj]

it probably technically wouldn't be insider trading in the US but I think the laws may be different in Europe.

[JackFr]

It’s not insider trading as there is no material non-public information involved. Were the information false, it would likely be actionable market manipulation. But because the information was true, from the perspective of the authorities nothing wrong here.

On the other hand, there may be ethical (but not legal) issues from the perspective of the publisher.