Why wasn't Martha Stewart charged with insider trading?

[pg22]

I'm writing a paper for my American Law class, and after doing some research and writing, I'm left wondering why she wasn't actually charged with insider traading.


- Obstruction of justice, ?from January to April 2002, Stewart willfully and knowingly tried to hamper the SEC investigation of her stock sale by providing misleading information.?

- Conspiracy, ?Stewart and Bacanovic willfully and knowingly worked together to obstruct justice and make false statements in the stock-trading scandal.?

- And two counts of making false statements, ?Stewart lied when she told the SEC, the FBI and prosecutors that she did not recall being told on Dec. 27, 2001, that the family of ImClone Systems founder Sam Waksal was selling stock and she had prearranged with Bacanovic to sell ImClone when it fell below $60.?

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck......right?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because it could not be proven. There was not sufficient evidence to bring charges, but there were for the others.

 

[pg22]

So the DOJ was simply not confident enough in that charge specifically? But insider trading is what it was all about, correct?

 

[Jhhnn]

Because she wasn't guilty of it, as such. Her broker called said that the Imclone founder was dumping his holdings. She said dump mine, too... The broker broke the law in that instance, not Martha. When she altered the tapes on her answering machine and lied to the FBI, she broke the law...

Had she told the truth from the get-go, she'd have been guilty of nothing...

 

[ReiAyanami]

had she told the truth everybody would know she was insider trading

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Pretty much it was about many scandals involving larger and more powerful entities and people. IMO the DOJ saw someone who people loved to hate and went after her as an easy mark. Takes some of the sting off of Enron.

 

[pg22]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
had she told the truth everybody would know she was insider trading

That what it seems like to me, so far. I wonder if insider trading, on its own, would carry a heavier sentence than the four charges she was just convicted of.

 

[Jhhnn]

Acting on what should be insider only information if you're not a company insider is not illegal, plain and simple.

If a broker divulges to a third party that an insider is trading improperly, that third party is guilty of nothing, except possibly greed, no matter what action they take, because they're not an insider...

Had Martha played it straight with investigators, they could have wagged their fingers at her, called her a greedy bitch, and that would have been the end of it... she tried to save her broker's hide, instead, when any truly savvy Republican wheeler-dealer would have sold him out in a heartbeat...

 

[pg22]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Acting on what should be insider only information if you're not a company insider is not illegal, plain and simple.

If a broker divulges to a third party that an insider is trading improperly, that third party is guilty of nothing, except possibly greed, no matter what action they take, because they're not an insider...

ahhh, that clears things up a bit for me. Thanks guys.

 

[thuper]

I still don't get this "making false statements" rap. Anybody who denies a crime and is later found guilty falls into this category. Its bull.

Granted I'm sure what she did was a little more than denying, but its still a BS charge.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, thuper, federal authorities get more than a little twisted when you lie to 'em, actively attempt to thwart an investigation.

It's one thing to remain silent, refuse to give any information beyond name, rank and serial #. They don't like that, either, but it's perfectly legal. And one of their other nasty habits is to pile on as many charges as possible up front, try to force a plea... If the defendant won't go along with the program, the prosecutors put the wood to 'em- every time, one of those "don't waste my time" messages...

For anybody involved in shady dealings, and the cops come sniffing around-

Rule #1- stfu. say nothing. let your lawyer do the talking. More dopes have been convicted by their own blabbermouths than by actual evidence.

Rule #2- if cornered, provide some version of the truth. doesn't have to be the whole story, just don't lie...

Rule #3- tell the whole truth only in response to a plea arrangement- if you're actually guilty.

In Martha's case, any competent defense attorney would have told her to throw the broker to the wolves, save herself, because she hadn't violated the law until she started telling stories...

She's a billionaire, and could have easily provided for his interests while he was away and thereafter...

"Sorry, old friend, but I'm not going down with you. But I'll take care of things, we'll work something out..."