The crime of "insider trading" is a type of securities fraud. A plain reading of the law would not seem to apply to purchasing a home. But historically securities fraud has been used to prosecute a wide array of behavior
I would be surprised if purchasing a mine for some particular mineral immediately after learning that your tech company will suddenly need an enormous amount of that mineral in a closed door meeting, didn't constitute some sort of insider trading.
Similarly, if advanced real estate purposes were made with the intent of resale I'd imagine you'd also get hit with insider trading. I think it'd be pretty reasonable to prosecute them anyways since they are using insider knowledge of market movements to gain an edge in the real estate market.
That’s a very broad and speculative reading. Insider trading is about regulating the securities market, not about keeping all transactions by the insider information-balanced.
> I would be surprised if purchasing a mine for some particular mineral immediately after learning that your tech company will suddenly need an enormous amount of that mineral in a closed door meeting, didn't constitute some sort of insider trading.
Then prepare to be surprised
> Similarly, if advanced real estate purposes were made with the intent of resale I'd imagine you'd also get hit with insider trading
You'd imagine wrong
> I think it'd be pretty reasonable to prosecute them anyways since they are using insider knowledge of market movements to gain an edge in the real estate market.
That's not what insider trading is in the eyes of the law.
Insider trading applies strictly to securities. Commodities markets have laws against front-running. But that's about it.
If you take information that your company is going to suddenly need a new metal and you go buy all the mines then about all your company can do is fire you.
For a historical example I’m pretty sure Disney did this with purchasing land in Orlando before they announced they would build Disney World there. They even used fake names. Given in that case the company itself was doing the purchasing in secret so that seems a bit less shady.
Real estate as a whole needs newer and much stronger restrictions. It's an inarguable fact that it's a "housing market" and speculative investment tends to be bad for everyone.
"I would be surprised if purchasing a mine for some particular mineral immediately after learning that your tech company will suddenly need an enormous amount of that mineral in a closed door meeting, didn't constitute some sort of insider trading."
I do mining. It's not illegal by any means. How else would a company obtain the resources they need if not for looking for them, either in the earth or in the marketplace?
Hey lightedman, just wanted to make sure you know you are shadowbanned and have been for years. I can see your comments because I have "showdead" turned on but most people can't.
I was looking for specific case law that could be used to argue that the behavior in question is unlawful, as the GP implied but did not support with facts or law.
The article you cite does not provide references to such law either; in fact, it neither has the word "fraud" nor "insider" in it. This article was about bribery, particularly of foreign officials; and the prosecutions attempted by the SEC led to consent decrees, not new securities laws. (The FCPA, however, eventually did get passed by Congress to outlaw the practice; but that is not a securities law.)
In fact, the article itself states:
> Proxmire believed that although the SEC had done all it could under the disclosure program, what was really needed was a law specifically prohibiting foreign bribery. The existing laws were not sufficient, as they addressed only the means through which a bribe might be paid, but not the act of paying a bribe itself.
