我在瑞联银任职时,与老板合作愉快。他对我很信任,有问必答。有一次我远远看到(瑞联银的美国分部有世界最大的银行交易厅,超过一个足球场大,四层楼高)他和他的执行助手(瑞联银美国分部股票销售交易的主管,Head of Equity Sales-Trading;和我同级,但是较资深)在一起讨论一件事,两人的肢体语言都露出鄙视不屑的态度。我好奇心起,就走过去询问是怎么回事。原来附近的一家对衝基金,叫做SAC Capital(因老板Steven A. Cohen而命名),邀请了我的老板去“谈生意”,但是他知道SAC的生意是怎么一回事,所以衹派了他的助手赴约,那人刚回来匯报。
这个局面一直到2009年才有了转变:一个有野心、有理想的新人升任纽约南区联邦检察长(US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,负责纽约市和附近的好几个县,所以对金融罪案有管辖权),他的名字叫Preet Bharara。Bharara出生于印度,随父母移民至新泽西长大,是锡克教徒;在上任前已经当了5年的曼哈顿联邦助理检察长,对华尔街的非法勾当十分熟悉,但是他的前任祇关心建立人脉(这人后来转任一个大律师事务所的高管),不放手让他抓大鱼。他一旦独当一面,马上就把内綫交易做为办案的主要方向之一, 6年下来,一连起诉了88个案,成功定罪了其中的87个,包括Galleon基金的董事长和一名高盛董事会的成员,惊动了整个美国金融业。他最重要的失败就是Steven Cohen,这是因为Cohen一直都不留下直接的证据,总是由手下当白手套;Bharara一连定罪了八名SAC的交易员,但是却没有任何一个愿意当污点证人(Cohen钱太多,付出的封口费太诱人),最后衹好跟SAC和解,罚了4亿美元了事。这是美国法律史上最高的和解罚金,但是衹占Cohen财產的2%不到。
这样铁面无私的官僚,动了几个大财阀的蛋糕,几年下来反扑是必然的。不过我本来以为他们会从Bharara的职位着手,没想到这些人在商言商(It is just Business, nothing personal.),倒不把它当做私仇,衹是着重在一劳永逸,从根本上杜绝了联邦司法系统阻挡他们财路的可能。他们的入手点是一个叫Anthony Chiasson的交易员,他原本在SAC任职,后来拿了Cohen的钱开了一家卫星基金,继续搞内綫交易的老勾当。他被定罪之后,上诉到联邦上诉法庭,理由是Bharara没有查到一手交钱、一手交货的过程,也就是他在Dell和nVidia的“朋友”们衹是好意提醒他;上诉法官居然采纳了这种荒唐的藉口,创下了新的判例,宣布衹要没有找到金钱交易的证据,内綫消息就不算违法。如此一来,Bharara或是其他有心办案的官员就算有通天的本事,也不可能再定任何内綫基金的罪了,因为这些内綫交易者有太多的手段来避免留下金钱直接转手的痕迹,例如可以“捐钱”给内綫来源创办并主管的“慈善机构”,或者用现钞交易,或者是经过Cayman Island的银行来匯钱。这还不够,上诉法官还要求必须能证明内綫消息传递的每一个环节都知道消息是非法的,这在实际上根本不可能被满足,几个人随便撒个谎,检查官就没辙了。
Respectfully: I think this only shows that you know nothing of "insider trading" and the legal analysis behind it. Your article here entirely misses the mark.
I would highly encourage you to first read the opinion (U.S. v. Newman). Or -- you can also read the analysis in Chinese, here: “内幕交易”的传奇 - 从德克斯到塞尔曼blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_9450a80f0102wnkq.html
The rule of this blog is that the dissenter must provide his own facts and logic in support of his argument. Outside links do not count, for I have neither time nor interests in reading them all.
You made a clearly false claim without explanation. This is a serious violation. Consider yourself warned. Bringing your facts to the discussion is YOUR responsibility, not mine. Lazy stupid people who do not want to explain their reasoning cannot expect me to do their job for them.
I am no lawyer, but probably have seen more insider trading on Wall Street than any other Chinese alive. If you are going to argue the legal points, that is exactly what this article is about. Namely, something hugely damaging to society/economy and nominally illegal has been whitewashed on technicalities and semantics.
For someone who claims to be familiar with legal matters, you are surprisingly resistant to abiding by the rules. This is my blog, and I run it by a set of clear and reasonable rules, one of which is that only facts and arguments presented here will be considered. Links tend to be a waste of everyone's time, and can only be referenced as proof instead of being used as substitutes for real arguments. Why do you think you can dictate how I spend my time when you yourself are too lazy to summarize the "truth" here? Unfortunate for you, I, unlike the practitioners of the American justice system, am not affected by twisted legal posturing at all. Since you are clearly incapable of logic and disrespectful to order, all your subsequent posts have been and will be automatically removed.