Even before New York’s AG Tish James began an insider trading investigation into whether Trump’s ally got some hints on buying stocks before the president’s tariff “suspension,” Wall Street veterans flagged tax-related transactions on the Apple that money learned.
These included questionable purchases of Apple stocks that were beaten after the market opened last Friday. The transaction in question was the White House’s surprising tariff exemption on smartphones in advance hours beforehand. This is an announcement that will strengthen the drooping wealth of large tech companies and their inventory that have been stricken down China’s ties since the Trump trade war began.
Suddenly, the curve came out and a $3,500 iPhone appeared from the table. Billions of lost market capitalization in revenue models can be recovered. Apple doesn’t need to return all of its factories to the US from places like China to avoid taxation. The stock was a screaming shopping.
And, after all, some very visionary Wall Street types seemed to be looking at the future just before the exemption announcement began after the bell on Friday night, buying Apple stock. Apple’s shares rose 6.5% without obvious news. Apple’s stocks surged as the market reopened the following Monday. So, as the kids say, the timing of the transaction was a bit SUS.
At least that’s what the source of the deal has told me. This means that these Apple deals are ripe for insider trading cases, and perhaps some prosecutions. Transactions of material, private information is a crime. People put it in prison.
Maybe, or maybe not. Certainly, insider trading involves stealing private information that belongs to public shareholders correctly and trading for personal profits. But there is a lot of space between the strange-looking trade and insider trading cases. Because the law is quite vague.
That’s because there is no clearly defined law outlining what insider trading is or isn’t, so it’s just a court precedent. In other words, fitting that definition into a case is complicated. Most insider trading includes intermediaries, people who hear something from CEOs and corporate executives before handing it over to the person who makes the transaction, so it’s not just about trading with something that’s not public. To prove information theft, these parties must have financial relationships or have no cases.
Casual conversations with inventories tips do not apply. In addition, most of these insider trading cases involve corporate executives or insiders who steal information about the internal businesses of companies that can move shares, rather than government conspiracy. Yes, there are laws that prevent legislative members from trading private information obtained from briefings.
But when was the last time you saw one of them go to prison to do so? Answer: Never. Why: These Fuzzy Court precedents do not cover government officials.
Furthermore, we did some research into what was bouncing in the market just before the so-called Apple exemption announcement came out of the left field and allegedly slumped down the dirty trade. That same day, the Federal Reserve governor was quoted saying that if the country’s central bank continues to collapse, it will stabilize the market. Fed interventions are always positive for stocks. It may also have explained the purchase of Apple or other technical names that afternoon.
James’s Trump semi-investment (she says she’s just kicking the tires for now) faces a similar hurdle. She is investigating whether Trump has turned his friends and family upside down before announcing the “suspension” of the April 9 tariff (excluding Chinese products), which earned the Dow nearly 3,000 points.
It should be noted that NY AG has been trying to nail Trump to something for years.
This week, Trump regained the punch and sent James a crime introduction for a suspiciously-looking mortgage application she filled out.
Given her bias, we can understand whether she overlooked some Expert evidence, as Trump urged Americans to buy the market well before the announcement of the suspension and to buy the market just before its opening on April 9th.
He wrote it in every cap, probably because he really believed it. Anyone who bought openly would have made as much money as the person he allegedly turned over.
Conclusion: If insider trading is proven very easily, then more than a few lawmakers and even more Wall Street traders would go to prison.
In the meantime, I hope Tisch James can explain to us all the unstable mortgage applications she has filled out.
