The Trial Of Martha Stewart

I’m convinced that Martha Stewart did commit the crime of insider trading, on December 27, 2001. Looking at the events leading to her decision to liquidate her shares in lone, it is evident that she was in possession of material information that was not available to the public yet. The fact that her Financial Advisor, Mr..Biconcave had instructed Baneful to call Martha Stewart and let her know of the selling frenzy that was going on with the Wassail’s, which suggests that Peter Biconcave was in possession of insider information about lone company, which e shared with Martha and advised her to sell her shares before the stock plummets proves that, Stewart was aware of upcoming changes effecting lone stock beforehand.Another incident that suggests Martha Steward’s quilt is the fact that when Peter Biconcave asked Baneful to call Martha and break the news to her, Baneful hesitated asking Peter whether or not it was permitted to share that sort of sensitive information, with another client.

Merrill Lunch’s Privacy Policy prohibits the release of client information, except upon client’s authorization or when permitted or squired by law. The telephone call that was made to Martha Steward’s secretary, Ann Armstrong revealed that Baneful left a message stating, “Peter Biconcave thinks lonely is going to start trading downward. Peter, in possession of material information has tipped off Martha Stewart about the Wassail’s selling their shares in lone and as a result she acted on this information and sold her shares. The act of selling her shares based on the insider information provided to her violated the insider trading law. 2. I believe the U. S.

Attorneys and the SEC used good Judgment n indicting Martha Stewart. All of the evidence that was presented in court suggests that Martha Stewart was guilty of insider trading and she should pay the price like anyone else.The fact that she is a public figure and is wealthy does not seem to have clouded the Judgment of any law enforcement agency involved. I believe she received a well-deserved punishment for breaking the law. Many times such high volume trading results in sever market fluctuations which effects many individuals that have their life savings invested, the fact that Martha Stewart participated in manipulating McConnell stock effected many hard working individuals portfolios in a negative way.As a result of her wrongdoing, the SEC and the US attorneys made the right decision to indict her, not to make an example out of her or because of ulterior motives, but solely because she was guilty of an actual crime. 3.

I agree with the Jury that Martha Stewart was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy and obstruction of Justice charges. She had lied about the fact that she had been tipped off with insider information.There is a wealth of evidence that mints to her liquidating her shares in Lincoln right after she found out the Steward’s were selling their shares, yet she persisted that she had a pre-existing agreement with Biconcave to sell if the stock dipped below $60 a share. Even though there was no concrete evidence that Biconcave fabricated the @60 dollar agreement, there was evidence found that a different type of pen was used to write @60 on Martha Stewart profile sheet. Also, Stewart hiring a criminal defense attorney after a meeting with Backboard shows that she knew she had done something wrong.What s even more obvious is that a criminal defense attorney was hired even before government investigators contacted her. 4.

Martha Steward’s punishment seemed light when you consider her actions of deception, lying to the detectives and acting on insider information. A fine of only $30,000 was very minuscule in comparison to the crime committed. The prison sentence was a reasonable timeshare, and the house arrest made sense as well. Overall, Martha Stewart was let off the hook fairly easy. When it comes to Peter Biconcave, I believe he should have received a longer term in prison and a heftier fine.After all, he was the professional and he knew better not to share his client’s sensitive and private information with others. Yet for his own gain, he tipped off Martha Stewart and violated the insider trading law.

As someone that worked with affluent clients, he should have respected their privacy and safeguarded his client’s information. Peter not only violated his employers Privacy Policy, but he also tried to alter company documents in hopes of hiding the truth. Douglas Baneful redeemed himself when he came forward and shared the truth with the investigators and the law enforcement.