← Back to context Comment by varjag 9 hours ago Pretty sure Count 1 through 5 above cover insider trading by administration officials too. 4 comments varjag Reply enoint 1 hour ago I think 3 and 4 are frauds on others in the prediction market agreement. As in, it’s fraud against the terms of the market. bandrami 8 hours ago The problem is "insider trading" has a definition and acting based on knowledge of government secrets isn't what it is. varjag 6 hours ago And what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice. jonathanstrange 8 hours ago IANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.
enoint 1 hour ago I think 3 and 4 are frauds on others in the prediction market agreement. As in, it’s fraud against the terms of the market.
bandrami 8 hours ago The problem is "insider trading" has a definition and acting based on knowledge of government secrets isn't what it is. varjag 6 hours ago And what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice. jonathanstrange 8 hours ago IANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.
varjag 6 hours ago And what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice.
jonathanstrange 8 hours ago IANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.
I think 3 and 4 are frauds on others in the prediction market agreement. As in, it’s fraud against the terms of the market.
The problem is "insider trading" has a definition and acting based on knowledge of government secrets isn't what it is.
And what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice.
IANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.