189
US man accused of making $1.8m from listening in on wife’s remote work calls (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

US regulators have accused a man of making $1.8m (£1.4m) by trading on confidential information he overheard while his wife was on a remote call, in a case that could fuel arguments against working from home.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said it charged Tyler Loudon with insider trading after he “took advantage of his remote working conditions” and profited from private information related to the oil firm BP’s plans to buy an Ohio-based travel centre and truck-stop business last year.

The SEC claims that Loudon, who is based in Houston, Texas, listened in on several remote calls held by his wife, a BP merger and acquisitions manager who had been working on the planned deal in a home office 20ft (6 metres) away.

The regulator said Loudon went on a buying spree, purchasing more than 46,000 shares in the takeover target, TravelCentres, without his wife’s knowledge, weeks before the deal was announced on 16 February 2023. TravelCentres of America’s stock soared by nearly 71% after the deal was announced. Loudon then sold off all of his shares, making a $1.8m profit.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 193 points 9 months ago

It’s easy to blame working from home for this but the fact is that this happens all the time, and has happened even when everyone was in office. The problem is people breaking the law, not people not having to commute.

In this case this idiot seriously thought no one would notice. They did, he’s going to jail. The system worked. No reason to make this about anything other than his behavior.

[-] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 66 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Based on how the article is written, it sounds like no one would have noticed if his (now ex) wife hadn’t ratted him out to her bosses.

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 52 points 9 months ago

Because she’s liable too. He broke the law and implicated her in a crime.

That also doesn’t have anything to do with working from home. Insider trading based on information you gleaned from your spouse’s or friend’s or mom’s job has been happening for as long as the stock market has been in existence. Would the situation be different if she had been talking about how excited she was about this merger over dinner and he’d acted on that information? The burden is on him to not break the law, but employers will use stuff like this to stupidly argue against working from home.

[-] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 54 points 9 months ago

What’s frustratingly awful about this is that US Senators and Representatives become millionaires doing exactly this, and the SEC doesn’t even blink.

Did he break the law? Yes. Is the SEC a joke and the law used to punish and oppress the proletariat, also yes.

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

Come on, you can’t expect them not to break little laws like that. The money is right there! Why shouldn’t they just take some? \s

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Does she get to keep her half of the 1.8 mill?

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

No, it is forfeit.

[-] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Asking the real questions here.

[-] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 74 points 9 months ago

Cant have the little guy doing it, it’s only okay when it’s politicians or already ultra rich people

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

You call that guy “little”? Who are you?

[-] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 6 points 9 months ago

Im very much poorer than that, but what is a millionaire in this day and age? Upper middle class. That amount is an accounting error for the actually rich people who own the world.

[-] Eggyhead@kbin.run 59 points 9 months ago

Yeah, but Google, Facebook, and other megacorps profit from doing the same kind of thing and that seems to be fine.

[-] harsh3466@lemmy.ml 32 points 9 months ago

It’s because they’re already part of the oligarchy, so it’s okay. The rules/law only applies to us normies.

[-] MxM111@kbin.social -5 points 9 months ago

Can you give example? How do they use this kind of confidential information for stock trading?

[-] Eggyhead@kbin.run 3 points 9 months ago

You need an example of big tech companies collecting personal information and exploiting it for profit?

[-] MxM111@kbin.social -1 points 9 months ago

No, for stock trading, as this guy did.

[-] Eggyhead@kbin.run 0 points 9 months ago

Why would you need that?

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

Yeah, but Google, Facebook, and other megacorps profit from doing the same kind of thing and that seems to be fine.

[-] Eggyhead@kbin.run 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Oh I see. You’re getting stuck on semantics. You see, when I used “same kind of” in my sentence, that was to specify that it is not the same exact thing. My concern lies in the fact that personal data is taken and exploited for personal profit, the details of how the data is exploited is less important to me than the fact that it is allowed to be collected and exploited in the first place. Actually, since you bring it up, I wonder if a megacorp with bots collecting data from consumers all across the web might have the resources to predict and possibly manipulate the stock market themselves? Hmm…

[-] MxM111@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

That’s what I asked example of.

Making money on personal information while might be immoral, but legal (as far as what Google does), this guy did something different and illegal. I honestly do not see similarities.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

They targeted a regular dude, not they companies raking in billions off of shit like this.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago

And the article for some reason thinks this is a case for getting rid of work from home?

Wtf do we live in

[-] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

A world where those very corporations control media outlets

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

deleted by creator

[-] Cort@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I think to avoid SEC complications, you have to have a high net worth BEFORE your scam, not just because of it. Since money can be seized without a presumption of innocence, they'd likely just seize the 2mill profit and say you have to prove its innocence to get it back.

You'd need to have a high enough net worth from the get-go in order to make it seem more expensive than it's worth to investigate/litigate.

[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

When you're married to someone, your finances may as well be your spouse's. Who would seriously buy that much in shares and not keep your own wife in the loop?

[-] PatFussy@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago

Wow and this guy didn't even post FDs. What a jerk

[-] ef9357 3 points 9 months ago

Insider trading is only okay if you’re a federal level politician. /s

this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
189 points (94.8% liked)

News

23422 readers
2635 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world