Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Soros Loses Challenge to Insider Trading Conviction
Don't know about European law, but the statement by the court that Soros "should have realized that he risked violating insider-trading laws" sure would sound unconstitutionally vague if one were applying US law.
One does not risk violating a law with a particular action; that action either is or isn't a violation of the law. (One may risk detection, capture, punishment, but one does not risk violation, which is a matter of law.)
It is also interesting that the European court (unlike US courts) seems to be saying that the same action with the same intent by two individuals could be criminal for one and legal for the other, because the former "should have known better".
Finally, keep in mind that this is just a lower court ruling that's being appealed on even narrower grounds of vagueness - in the penultimate paragraph, Soros' lawyers dispute even the finding that Soros "should have known better":
"'The court seems to be saying that Mr. Soros and other investors should somehow have had a clearer view of the law than the people who were charged with applying it,' Mr. Soffer said, referring to market regulators."
Human Rights groups are now getting into this ?!?!?!?!?!
To me this is the epitome of bulls***. Not that people cannot have their opinions. I just think someone's Human Rights were getting violated when these guys were compiling a report on Soros. Just like SEC employees were knitting sweaters under their desks while Bernie Madoff was swindling billions.
Everyone has an opinion. Too much government? No, too much unnecessary media. Dunno why we have unemployment. Wonder what'll happen if all free sites on the internet stop being free. People cannot let go of their iPhones. Maybe people will start paying for their content.
Is Obama listening? I'm serious. Meanwhile, it would be nice to see if George Soros made any charitable donations that year. I don't even know what the bugger looks like. Just know he ran a hedge fund with Mr. WhatsHisName who moved to China or something.
Human rights - as in "my rights were violated, it's unconstitutional, I'm going to take it to the Supreme Court". Soros asserted that his rights were violated, claiming was charged with an ex post facto law.
In the US, that would get you into federal court, under Article 1, § 9 of the Constitution (for a federal law) or Article 1, § 10 (for a state law). In Europe, the same ex post facto claim gets you into the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 7 of the European convention on human rights.
Relating this back to the concept of the law being vague - a law may be too vague to pass muster, but once a court rules on what the law means, it is possible that the ambiguity is dissipated - so going forward, the same actions would be criminal. And that in turn brings us right back to ex post facto - at the time (though not now), Soros' actions may not have violated the (too vague) law even though they would now.
If you want to understand where this sits procedurally (how the case moved through the French courts and to the Human Rights Court, which claims the Court agreed to hear and which it rejected), you may want to read the original NYTimes article on this case. If nothing else, it offers you something you've never seen before - a picture of Soros.
Maurice, maybe you could add "in France" to your title? Some folk may only skim headers and could be led to believe case involves violation of U.S. securities laws. I do agree it's wrong to break the laws of any country. Ma always said: "When in France....."
Reply to @VintageFreak: What's what happens when you rush to post. The court here is European court. According to European Union treaty, if a member country convicts you of criminal activity (now) which was not when the activity took place you can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. It is their system. Nothing wrong with it.
Comments
One does not risk violating a law with a particular action; that action either is or isn't a violation of the law. (One may risk detection, capture, punishment, but one does not risk violation, which is a matter of law.)
It is also interesting that the European court (unlike US courts) seems to be saying that the same action with the same intent by two individuals could be criminal for one and legal for the other, because the former "should have known better".
Finally, keep in mind that this is just a lower court ruling that's being appealed on even narrower grounds of vagueness - in the penultimate paragraph, Soros' lawyers dispute even the finding that Soros "should have known better":
To me this is the epitome of bulls***. Not that people cannot have their opinions. I just think someone's Human Rights were getting violated when these guys were compiling a report on Soros. Just like SEC employees were knitting sweaters under their desks while Bernie Madoff was swindling billions.
Everyone has an opinion. Too much government? No, too much unnecessary media. Dunno why we have unemployment. Wonder what'll happen if all free sites on the internet stop being free. People cannot let go of their iPhones. Maybe people will start paying for their content.
Is Obama listening? I'm serious. Meanwhile, it would be nice to see if George Soros made any charitable donations that year. I don't even know what the bugger looks like. Just know he ran a hedge fund with Mr. WhatsHisName who moved to China or something.
In the US, that would get you into federal court, under Article 1, § 9 of the Constitution (for a federal law) or Article 1, § 10 (for a state law). In Europe, the same ex post facto claim gets you into the European Court of Human Rights, under Article 7 of the European convention on human rights.
Relating this back to the concept of the law being vague - a law may be too vague to pass muster, but once a court rules on what the law means, it is possible that the ambiguity is dissipated - so going forward, the same actions would be criminal. And that in turn brings us right back to ex post facto - at the time (though not now), Soros' actions may not have violated the (too vague) law even though they would now.
If you want to understand where this sits procedurally (how the case moved through the French courts and to the Human Rights Court, which claims the Court agreed to hear and which it rejected), you may want to read the original NYTimes article on this case. If nothing else, it offers you something you've never seen before - a picture of Soros.