Negociere cu cineva din interior, Insider trading - Wikipedia


Illegal[ edit ] Rules prohibiting or criminalizing insider trading on negociere cu cineva din interior non-public information exist in most jurisdictions around the world Bhattacharya and Daouk,but the details and the efforts to enforce them vary considerably.

In the United States, Sections 16 b and 10 b of the Securities Exchange Act of directly and indirectly address insider trading.

The U. Congress enacted this law after the stock market crash of Trades made by these types of insiders in the company's own stock, based on material non-public information, are considered fraudulent since the insiders are violating the fiduciary duty that they owe to the shareholders.

Insider trading

negociere cu cineva din interior The corporate insider, simply by accepting employment, has undertaken a legal obligation to the shareholders to put the shareholders' interests before their own, in matters related to the corporation. When insiders buy or sell based upon company-owned information, they are said to be violating their obligation to the shareholders. For example, illegal insider trading would occur if the chief executive officer of Company A learned prior to a public announcement that Company A will be taken over negociere cu cineva din interior then bought shares in Company A while knowing that the share price would likely rise.

In the United States and many other jurisdictions, however, negociere cu cineva din interior are not just limited to corporate officials and major shareholders where illegal insider trading is concerned but can include any individual who trades shares based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust. This duty may be imputed; for example, in many jurisdictions, in cases of where a corporate insider "tips" a friend about non-public information likely to have an effect on the company's share price, the duty the corporate insider owes the company is now imputed to the friend lucrați pe Internet câștigând bani the friend violates a duty to oly cannel pentru opțiuni binare company if he trades on the basis of this information.

Liability[ edit ] Liability for inside trading violations generally cannot be avoided by passing on the information in an "I scratch your back; you scratch mine" or quid pro quo arrangement if the person receiving the information knew or should have known that the information was material non-public information.

negociere cu cineva din interior centru de tranzacționare cu cont cent

In the United States, at least one court has indicated that the insider who releases the non-public information must have done so for an improper purpose. In the case of a person who receives the insider information called the "tippee"the tippee must also have been aware that the insider released the information for an improper purpose.

It states that anyone who misappropriates material non-public information and trades on that information in any stock may be guilty of insider trading.

This can include elucidating material non-public information from an insider with the intention of trading on it, or passing it on to someone who will. Proof of responsibility[ edit ] Proving that someone has been responsible for a trade can be difficult because traders may try to hide behind nominees, offshore companies, and other proxies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission SEC prosecutes over 50 cases each year, with many being settled administratively negociere cu cineva din interior of court. The SEC and several stock exchanges actively monitor trading, looking for suspicious activity.

Attorney's Office for further investigation and prosecution. Trading on information in general[ edit ] In the United States and most non-European jurisdictions not all trading on non-public information is illegal insider trading. If this type of information is obtained directly or indirectly and there is reason to believe it is nonpublic, there is a duty to disclose it or abstain from trading.

Department of Justice DOJ may be called to conduct an independent parallel investigation. If the DOJ finds criminal wrongdoing, the Department may file criminal charges.

SEC Rule 10b clarified that the prohibition against insider trading negociere cu cineva din interior not require proof that an insider actually used material nonpublic information when conducting a trade; possession of such information alone is sufficient to violate the provision, and the SEC tranzacționare stabilă la știri infer that an insider in possession of material nonpublic information used this information when conducting a trade.

negociere cu cineva din interior opțiune cu a lor

However, SEC Rule 10b also created for insiders an affirmative defense if the insider can demonstrate that the trades conducted on behalf of the insider were conducted as part of a pre-existing contract or written binding plan for trading in the future. United States law[ edit ] Until the 21st century and the European Union's market abuse laws, the United States was the leading country in prohibiting insider trading made on the basis of material non-public information.

Sentencing Guidelines.

negociere cu cineva din interior cum să înveți să tranzacționezi opțiuni video

This means that first-time offenders are eligible to receive probation rather than incarceration. Inwell before the Securities Exchange Act was passed, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a corporate director who bought that company's stock when he knew the stock's price was about to increase committed fraud by buying but not disclosing his inside information.

negociere cu cineva din interior portofel fiat

Section 15 of the Securities Act of [19] contained prohibitions of fraud in the sale of securities, later greatly strengthened by the Securities Exchange Act of The Insider Trading Sanctions Negociere cu cineva din interior of and the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of place penalties for illegal insider trading as high as three times the amount of profit gained or loss avoided from the illegal trading.

In the case of an unintentional disclosure of material non-public information to one person, the company must make a public disclosure "promptly. Court decisions[ edit ] Much of the development of insider trading law has resulted from court decisions. Repide [22] that a director who negociere cu cineva din interior to act in a way that affects the value negociere cu cineva din interior shares cannot use that knowledge to acquire shares from those who do not know of the expected action.

Even though, in general, ordinary relations between directors and shareholders in a business corporation are not of such a fiduciary nature as to make it the duty of a director to disclose to a shareholder negociere cu cineva din interior knowledge regarding the value negociere cu cineva din interior the shares of the company before he purchases any from a shareholder, some cases involve special facts that impose such duty.

Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. Officers of the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company had used inside information about the discovery of the Kidd Mine to make profits by buying shares and call options on company stock. Securities and Exchange Commission [25] that tippees receivers of second-hand information are liable if they had reason to believe that the tipper had breached a fiduciary duty in disclosing confidential information. One such example would be if the tipper received any personal benefit from the disclosure, thereby breaching his or her duty of loyalty to the company.

In Dirks, the "tippee" received confidential information from an insider, a former employee of a company. The reason the insider disclosed the information to the tippee, and the reason the tippee disclosed the information to third parties, was to blow the whistle on massive fraud at the company. As a result of the tippee's efforts the fraud was uncovered, and the company went into bankruptcy. But, while the tippee had given the "inside" information to clients who made profits from the information, the U.

Supreme Court ruled that the tippee could not be held liable under the federal securities laws—for the simple reason that the insider from whom he received the information was not releasing the information for an improper purpose a personal benefitbut rather for the purpose of exposing the fraud.

The Supreme Court ruled that the tippee could not have been aiding and abetting a securities law violation committed by the insider—for the simple reason that no securities law violation had been committed by the insider.

In Dirks, the Supreme Court also defined the concept of "constructive insiders," who are lawyers, investment bankers, and others who receive confidential information from a corporation while providing services to the corporation.

Constructive insiders are also liable for insider trading violations if the corporation expects the information to opțiune de contabilitate confidential, since they acquire the fiduciary duties of the true insider. The next expansion of insider trading liability came in SEC vs. Materia [26] F. Materia, a financial printing firm proofreader, and clearly not an insider by any definition, was found to have determined the identity of takeover targets based on proofreading tender offer documents in the negociere cu cineva din interior of his employment.

After a two-week trial, the district court found him liable for insider trading, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed holding that the theft of information from an employer, and the use of that information to purchase or sell securities in another entity, constituted a fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of a securities.

The misappropriation theory of insider trading was born, and liability further expanded to encompass a larger group of outsiders.

  1. Ancorare[ modificare modificare sursă ] Ancorarea este o euristică psihologică care descrie tendința de a se baza, în luarea deciziilor, pe prima informație întâlnită.
  2. Opțiunea 30 ce este
  3. Tehnici de negociere
  4. Câștigați bani pe Internet pentru începători
  5. Tehnici de-negociere

In United States v.