I'm not sure if this is standard for SEC press releases, but why do they include details such as, "he was a school teacher" and, "he owed gambling debts"?
I've always suspected the SEC investigations regarding things like insider trading are typically the opposite of justice and designed to go after the smallest possible players while giving the illusion of enforcement. And these details in an allegedly serious investigation just seem to make the whole thing reek of small time gossip material.
It's just kind of surreal seeing this type of language in an official SEC press release regarding what I'm sure they would like us to believe they consider a serious crime.
While I have a lot of respect for the SEC's increased crackdown on financial wrongdoing such as insider trading, this really seems like a stretch. Considering how quickly "internal" company memos are publicly disseminated, I don't see how a Facebook post to 200K fans can be considered anything but public.
In this case it's a specific term related to SEC whistleblowing protections. The context is not about whistleblowing for some semblance of public protection, but whistleblowing for protection of investors who may have been misled.
I was hoping that because SEC was already in the title, fraud would be implied. They don't really tend to get involved for any other reason. Not at all my intention to editorialize or be deceitful, I made a good faith effort at removing the ~50% of characters that were least important to the content.
> The Securities and Exchange Commission > also < filed civil securities fraud charges against Milton on Thursday.
The SEC is not involved in criminal proceedings which could result in prison or other criminal penalties, so no point looking for that in the parts of the article that discuss the civil actions of the SEC.
this article is extremely misleading, creating what essentially is a fake controversy. I highly recommend reading this SEC guide to understand how it really works.
Well for starters when this guy tries to sell me securities in the future, I can turn him down. I'm sure the names are in the report, just found it curious that they would be anonymized when reported in the news.
Possible, but it seems really dangerous to make statements like that outside of normal disclosure routes. They're a publicly traded company, and the SEC really doesn't like that kind of stuff.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they legally required to disclose this kind of information? Couldn't it could be considered misleading investors otherwise?
I've always suspected the SEC investigations regarding things like insider trading are typically the opposite of justice and designed to go after the smallest possible players while giving the illusion of enforcement. And these details in an allegedly serious investigation just seem to make the whole thing reek of small time gossip material.
It's just kind of surreal seeing this type of language in an official SEC press release regarding what I'm sure they would like us to believe they consider a serious crime.
reply