3 ms·

It looks like both were involved in trading inside information, one for market operations and the other for articles. If the journalist had a deal (which I can

• throwaway789256 6y ago
  The journalist didn't need a deal. His prestige increased because he was publishing scoops.
• crazygringo 6y ago
  The journalist has not been charged with anything. And this actually brings up a fascinating point: is it a crime for a journalist to tell a third party when the journalist will publish a story, if both believe the story will affect the markets? The journalist isn't telling the third party what the information is -- after all, in this case it seems like it was the third party who supplied it. And the journalist isn't profiting financially either. They're just getting their story, not a share of profits. I'm not aware that courts have determined that this is facilitating insider trading. And like I said, the journalist hasn't been charged with anything. But I'm not an expert. Are you sure this would be a crime?
  • plouffy 6y ago
    Journalists often have embargoes on their articles. A company may want to announce a new product, will tell a few newspapers but ask them to wait before publishing.
    • PeterisP 6y ago
      Sure, but violating those embargoes is not a crime. It might (but isn't likely to) violate some contract between the company and the newspaper - which is also not a crime, but may open up the possibility for a civil claim; it might cause the newspaper to stop receiving future releases; it might result in the journalist getting fired, but nothing about violating such embargoes would be criminally prosecutable by the state.
      • plouffy 6y ago
        Sorry my point was that it wasn't a crime.