3 ms·
this comment is really off point. there's no guilty/not guilty/innocence distinction here because this wasn't even a criminal case, it was a civil case. in ad
by smalter 13y ago
this comment is really off point.
there's no guilty/not guilty/innocence distinction here because this wasn't even a criminal case, it was a civil case.
in addition, the statement "the government didn't prove insider trading" is tantamount to the statement "mark cuban did not commit insider trading" because the case boiled down to a disputed question of fact, and what actually happened is unknowable.
- joe_the_user 13y agoYes gak, "He wasn't proven innocent" is a rhetorical attack that can be made against virtually anyone who has been tried and not convicted in the US. Indeed doubly off-topic as this is a civil matter. But it still should be noted that, given prosecutors in the US have a high (up to 90%+) conviction rate, not being proven guilty is pretty good as far as exoneration goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate