The fact this is a civil suit has nothing to do with any of that. With insider trading, civil suits are easier for the government to win, because they don’t have to prove criminal intent. Also, the evidence of criminal intent, if any, is often adduced as the result of discovery in the civil action. So, the SEC usually initiates a civil action first. If, along the way, sufficient evidence arises to initiate a criminal proceeding, that would follow.
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.
SEC Charges Former Apple Lawyer Gene Levoff With Insider Trading [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The fact this is a civil suit has nothing to do with any of that. With insider trading, civil suits are easier for the government to win, because they don’t have to prove criminal intent. Also, the evidence of criminal intent, if any, is often adduced as the result of discovery in the civil action. So, the SEC usually initiates a civil action first. If, along the way, sufficient evidence arises to initiate a criminal proceeding, that would follow.
Understood, but if the guy is found guilty in the civil suit, the government should attempt prosecution and seek imprisonment as well.
They may, and that happens all the time. It will depend, though, on whether the prosecutor believes he/she can prove the intent element and meet the higher standard for a criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence). There are many insider trading cases in which the government can win a civil case but simply doesn't have what it needs to win a criminal case.
Whether or not the government seeks criminal charges will *not* turn on the fact this is a white-collar crime. The prosecutors tasked with making prosecution decisions in insider trading cases work on white-collar matters exclusively. Their job is to prosecute, so they will do so if they can.
Sorry, but a prosecutor is making an evaluation about whether or not the case should be prosecuted. There are well-known biases in this type of decision.
I'm not arguing there is no bias, but prosecutors *always* make these decisions. The fact that the SEC has prosecutors dedicated to this type of activity means that the bias is extremely unlikely to be in favor of letting off white-collar criminals, which was the concern expressed in your original post. If that were the mindset, someone with the job of prosecuting insider trading crimes wouldn't have much work to do. There are also checks and balances within the SEC, which is an incredibly well-run agency. If they end up with sufficient evidence of a crime within their jurisdiction, they will prosecute.
Meanwhile, in Germany employees of the BAFIN (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) can trade stock while having insider knowlodge (insider trading), e.g. wirecard stock -> See wirecard scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirecard_scandal (€1.9 billion were missing - oopsie daisy 
)
)