Salman v. United States

Stanford Law ReviewがSalman v. United Statesについて、オンラインシンポジウムを開催しています。以下の5名の著者のエッセーが読めます。

Professor Macey writes:

In light of the language in Dirks that “a gift of confidential information to a trading relative” satisfies the Court’s personal benefit test,19 the decision in Salman that a bank employee who was found to have given his brother confidential information—knowing that his brother would trade on that information—was therefore guilty of committing insider trading,20 was unremarkable and straightforward.

In his defense at trial, Salman argued that evidence of a friendship or familial relationship between tipper and tippee standing alone is insufficient to demonstrate that the tipper received a benefit absent evidence that the tipper received a “personal benefit.”47 This argument is clearly wrong as a matter of law because the Supreme Court explicitly held in Dirks that a gift to a relative satisfies the personal benefit test.

via Eric C. Chaffee, Skadden

コメントを残す

メールアドレスが公開されることはありません。

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

このサイトはスパムを低減するために Akismet を使っています。コメントデータの処理方法の詳細はこちらをご覧ください