3 ms·

Didn't Martha Stewart go to prison over something like that?

by curiousgal 9y ago

tachyoff 9y ago
She wasn’t powerful enough to avoid the consequences.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  The parent's point deserves consideration Martha Stewart wound up being prosecuted for "obstruction of justice" and "conspiracy", the go-to offenses when prosecutions otherwise hit a wall. Stewart's prosecution came at time when insider trading appeared common and when regulators were looking for a visible victory. A celebrity prosecution gets a lot of press without actually angering people with real power. Stewart was a mere millionaire, not a multimillionaire or billionaire. Edit: Well, I stand corrected, she was a multimillionaire at the time. Still it's hard not to see her as relatively small potatoes in the world of stocks. https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-case-1146196 https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-ca...
  - paulcole 9y ago
    Stewart was worth 10s of millions, probably closer to 100. I don’t get how that isn’t a multimillionaire.
tristanj 9y ago
Technically no. Martha Stewart went to prison for making false statements, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. She was never charged with insider trading.
mikestew 9y ago
To summarize, Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to Federal authorities. [0] Securities fraud was not part of what she was found guilty of, AFAIK. I dunno, much like someone here said about Icahn, you think she's risking prison for a loss of less than $50K? I don't have nearly her money, and I wouldn't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Icahn, unlike Stewart, is a professional stock speculator. There's every reason to think a speculator makes their money "running their connections". Moreover, if anything, Stewart's manifestly unfair and abusive case shows prosecutors choose their examples based not on how dirty the target is but rather how convenient they are. Those who go down, don't go down based on how much they break or skirt the law but based on their connections to power failing.
  - pasbesoin 9y ago
    I really dislike this aspect of our system, where participants (e.g. prosecutors) have so much motivation to build a personal career, over purpose to serve justice evenly, or sometimes even at all.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I was really surprised when I discovered this. Intentionally lying to a federal agent about anything material is grounds for criminal charges. Technically even a postal inspector. The police can lie to you all they want, but if you lie to a FBI agent in a line of questioning, it's not covered under the 1st amendment. It's not considered freedom of speech.
  - dreamcompiler 9y ago
    Right. Any time a federal official asks you a question other than "How's the weather?" your response should always be "I cannot comment before consulting with my attorney."
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Didn't Martha Stewart go to prison over something like that?

tachyoff 9y ago

She wasn’t powerful enough to avoid the consequences.

joe_the_user 9y ago
The parent's point deserves consideration Martha Stewart wound up being prosecuted for "obstruction of justice" and "conspiracy", the go-to offenses when prosecutions otherwise hit a wall. Stewart's prosecution came at time when insider trading appeared common and when regulators were looking for a visible victory. A celebrity prosecution gets a lot of press without actually angering people with real power. Stewart was a mere millionaire, not a multimillionaire or billionaire. Edit: Well, I stand corrected, she was a multimillionaire at the time. Still it's hard not to see her as relatively small potatoes in the world of stocks. https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-case-1146196 https://www.thoughtco.com/martha-stewarts-insider-trading-ca...
- paulcole 9y ago
  Stewart was worth 10s of millions, probably closer to 100. I don’t get how that isn’t a multimillionaire.

tristanj 9y ago

Technically no. Martha Stewart went to prison for making false statements, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. She was never charged with insider trading.

mikestew 9y ago

To summarize, Martha Stewart went to prison for lying to Federal authorities. [0] Securities fraud was not part of what she was found guilty of, AFAIK. I dunno, much like someone here said about Icahn, you think she's risking prison for a loss of less than $50K? I don't have nearly her money, and I wouldn't. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence

joe_the_user 9y ago
Icahn, unlike Stewart, is a professional stock speculator. There's every reason to think a speculator makes their money "running their connections". Moreover, if anything, Stewart's manifestly unfair and abusive case shows prosecutors choose their examples based not on how dirty the target is but rather how convenient they are. Those who go down, don't go down based on how much they break or skirt the law but based on their connections to power failing.
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  I really dislike this aspect of our system, where participants (e.g. prosecutors) have so much motivation to build a personal career, over purpose to serve justice evenly, or sometimes even at all.
djsumdog 9y ago
I was really surprised when I discovered this. Intentionally lying to a federal agent about anything material is grounds for criminal charges. Technically even a postal inspector. The police can lie to you all they want, but if you lie to a FBI agent in a line of questioning, it's not covered under the 1st amendment. It's not considered freedom of speech.
- dreamcompiler 9y ago
  Right. Any time a federal official asks you a question other than "How's the weather?" your response should always be "I cannot comment before consulting with my attorney."

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]