Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Former Apple Lawyer Gene Levoff Avoids Prison After Insider Trading Conviction
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe there is context that I'm missing. But based own your quote I'd suggest you may be wrong.
If I robbed a bank tomorrow the judge may say that I should, be sent to prison as as example to others, (and in fact lots of judges have said such a thing, NOT about me of course - this is just an example remember).
That is not the same however, as saying that I should be either;
The first to be sent to prison for this as a way of setting the tone for later prosecutions.
The only one to be sent to prison for this as a way of setting the tone for later prosecutions.
Is being sent to prison for what he did, common/rare?
Whether it is either doesn't mean the punishment is inflated.
As a lawyer, i can only agree with you. Your post is wise and should be read by the prosecutor as a remindrr of the basis of his work…
The problem is not enforcing the law (dura lex, sed lex 👐), but saying that you want to make an exemple. That somewhere the law should be more strictly enforced in the case of this dude, where his « crime » is the same as in so many situations before, without any particular context justifying a particularly hard sentence. Of there may be a particular context we don’t know (the dude is an « insider » as any other, and his position is not, at least from my point of view, an element making his crime more serious)
Star Wars episode III, when Obi-Wan says his last words to the beaten Anakin Skywalker.
This is why people don’t have faith in the justice system no more
This is not a real crime. Murderers and rapists get away with nothing. Sending someone to jail for purchasing a few shares on the stock market is preposterous.
Sending someone to jail for purchasing a few shares on the stock market is preposterous. Murderers and rapists get away with nothing.
A black woman steals some food for her family and goes to jail…this pos goes home. American justice at work.
As I stated, I fully agree that crimes must have sentencing. I am even OK with ensuring that the sentence is carried out without leniencies, when appropriate.
However, it is impossible not to be disgusted by so many prosecutors, who, and their desire to win, push for far greater sentencing, then the crime justifies.
If you talk to any defense attorney, you’ll find that, when their client is guilty, they have no issue with them serving time. The prosecutorial misconduct, in today’s modern world is over sentencing, to the point where the punishment does not fit the crime.
It’s one of the Star Wars prequels (probably Episode III), Obi-Wan to Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.
While, I fully agree that the justice system is flawed and must be made better, in nearly all US jurisdictions, shoplifting is a misdemeanor that results in no jail time at all. Most jurisdictions have limits for felony shoplifting of around $10,000.
Based on the judges comments, and the fact that his total gain from his crimes who was in the thousands, not millions, the sentencing seems appropriate.
Or, to think about this a different way, how likely is it that this particular person will ever commit this crime again?
Yeah I see that but saying and doing are two different things.
As I said in my original post, is it usual for the outcome that was found?
An officer of the court who breaks the law should be more severely punished. Why would anyone have respect for our legal system anymore? Why should anyone trust any institution?
He got off so easy. If a poor person robbed an apple store via simple shoplifting he probably serves some jail or prison time. This fellow harmed society far more than simple theft, but since he’s a Stanford educated lawyer he gets a slap on the wrist and can live his life by working at his next high paying job, even if it isn’t as a lawyer. SMH.
Joe Public may at times reasonably claim that he or she didn't know what they were doing, (and may be correct and genuine in doing so). That's more of a hard sell when it's an officer of the court.
'Ignorance of the law is no defence', is what we're told by those in power, yet they use ignorance to get out of trouble when they feel like it. It's therefore more reasonable to claim that what the officer did was premeditated.
We have plenty of laws on the books at the moment that look at premeditation from a different perspective and thus administer different and frequently harsher penalties.
That’s IT? The guy obviously wasn’t very good at insider trading if he was only able to clear a few hundred thousand dollars. Give me a break.
There have got to be bigger criminals than that within and associated with Apple.
This guy obviously pissed someone off with some political pull. The insider trading indictment and conviction was just to send a message.
There have got to be bigger criminals than that within and associated with Apple.
This guy obviously pissed someone off with some political pull. The insider trading indictment and conviction was just to send a message.
Pretty sure everyone convicted of a felony loses their job. This guy was an example of corporate scumbaggery at its finest, and the judge just continued the trend by letting him off. They probably went and played golf together when it was over.
He should be in jail. This is the guy we got an email from every 3 months telling us not to trade during the blackout period. No excuse.
Which is kind of dumb, given that Apple has employed thousands of lawyers, and this is the only guy prosecuted for insider trading that I can think of. And if you trade on insider information, there is a very high chance you will be caught, especially if you do it as stupidly as Levoff did (during a blackout period), so it's unlikely there are any other undiscovered egregious cases.
I agree! He either had to live way above his means and not have enough disposable income to buy more shares, or thought if he kept it lower maybe it would be unnoticed.
I feel like he had to have done it the most obvious way possible and quite literally only buy shares leading up to announcements and well obviously not when projections were not met (obviously because that is what the article says) but I guess he didn't think to sprinkle random buys and sells? I don't know for the level of his position as you stated that seems like a massive dumb move it has to be arrogance and listening to like 1 other coworker that did it but did it better.
Alternatively, It was an act of just pure arrogance. He didn’t do it for the money. He did it purely for the thrill of it because he thought he was above reproach since he was in charge of monitoring it. He believed would get away with it without any issue.