Husband 'made millions' by eavesdropping on BP wife

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68379318

by belter • 2 years ago

18 15 2 years ago

His wife - who was "stunned by this revelation" - reported the trading to her supervisor at BP.
Her email and texts were reviewed by BP and it found no evidence that she knowingly leaked the information about the deal to her husband or knew he had bought the shares.
But "BP nonetheless terminated her employment," said the filing.

metalcrow2• 2 years ago

It seems like the correct choice here was for her not to inform BP at all then. I'm sure that's the lesson they wanted people to take from this.

unsupp0rted3• 2 years ago

Tough call.

Break the law, save your marriage?... your marriage to a person who used you and ruined your career for his own financial gain.

Inform your company, attempt to save your career, send your spouse to prison?... lose your marriage... and what happened to those wedding vows?

The moment the guy broke her trust and did insider trading was the moment she was put in a lose/lose scenario.

He claimed he was doing it so that she wouldn't have to work so much and they'd have more time together. They're both loaded: it wasn't exactly stealing bread to survive another night.

She chose to not break the law, not risk prison and possibly save her career. I'd have done the same.

edoggie• 2 years ago

Not even sure why they prosecute this stuff while hundreds of Senators, House members do this shit all the time. It's a total racket.

neilbert• 2 years ago

Because it's not illegal for Congresscritters to do it...

olliej2• 2 years ago

Because congress has declared that it is legal for them to do it, so there's no criminal activity to prosecute.

Is that bullshit: yes.

Does that mean you should not prosecute it when it is illegal: of course not.

I get that you're frustrated that elected officials are allowed to trade on non-public information, but you can't say "why aren't you prosecuting them for it" when it's explicitly legal for them to do so.

Given the idiocy of the current setup, my feeling is people should get state level laws that say "all elected officials representing [state] must make all trade information available 5 business days prior to them being issued and once made public they cannot be cancelled; if they are aware of information that would reasonably expected to impact the price of the stock[s] they're trading they must indicate that; if any form of NDA or confidentiality requirement prevents them from indicating they are aware of such information that cannot make the trade; if they in anyway suggest or instruct any other person or entity to make any trades, they must provide the above details publicly just as though it were their own trade; if anyone receives any information, suggestion, or instruction from an elected official and through any mechanism other than their public notice, any trades they make are illegal; If an elected representative becomes aware of other officials - not from their state - trading in stock, funds, or industries while in possession of information that would reasonably impact valuations, they must publicly report the people they believe are trading, and the stock, funds, markets, etc that would be impacted by that knowledge". Finally, I'd add a "and every elected official's investment funds, etc must be public and trackable such that they can be automatically matched by anyone else".

Obviously in the ideal world what would happen is once you get elected to office or your investments, etc would be handed over to the relevant government body, where they would be liquidated into a cash balance, and then when you leave office you get that cash back increased by the median wealth increase of the bottom 80% of people in your state (for state government) or the US (for federal office). You'd also be prohibited from working in any industry you regulated or monitored for five years, and no contracts that offer you positions or compensation from before or during your period in government would ever be enforceable.

Because it's clear congress is not going to pass any laws prohibiting themselves from insider trading, so we're stuck with the ability for people to pass state level policies and laws to force the trading to be public, and to provide advance notice to everyone.

154573452343• 2 years ago

The SEC said: "We allege that Mr Loudon took advantage of his remote working conditions

That's the meat of it; an anti-remote article in disguise

toomuchtodo3• 2 years ago

Right. He took advantage of his partner, not remote work. Bad human.

154573452343• 2 years ago

No, taking advantage of his partner would be sitting her down and getting her drunk before interrogating her to obtain inside information.

Advantage was taken of the remote working situation which created the possibility to overhear a confidential phonecall.

I'm not against remote work but don't misinterpret reality to push a narrative.

Husband 'made millions' by eavesdropping on BP wife

Related Stories