|
|
|
|
|
|
by staunch
4624 days ago
|
|
|
Actually, since this is civil I think the bar is lower than in a criminal case. They probably only needed to prove that he's guilty based on the "preponderance of the evidence". Essentially that it's more likely he did it than he did not do it. Just knowing the timing alone would suggest a greater than 50% chance of him being guilty to me. I'd convict him in 5 minutes. |
|
|
The government's claim: Mark Cuban was on a phone call where he was told information and promised not to trade based on it. He immediately went out and sold his stock.
Mark Cuban's claim: Mark Cuban was on a phone call where he was told information but didn't promise anything. He immediately went out and sold his stock.
Both of these claims would exhibit the same timing, so I don't see how timing can help decide the important question, which was whether he was technically an "insider" for the purpose of the law.