Hacker News Reader

Comment by z3c0 | Hacker News Reader

The problem here is the disproportionate amount of "disincentive" occurring - in this case Ying is basically making around $500k to spend 4 months in prison. If somebody pitched that idea to me on its own, I'd at least put some thought into it.

Drug offenders often get punished so disproportionately for their crime that they're unable to take advantage of systems that would help them improve their lives after their multi-year prison sentences (jobs, college, travel, etc.) They certainly aren't going to have a few hundred thousand dollars waiting for them when they got out.

This is clearly anecdotal, but a family member of mine - who was imprisoned for 4 years in work camps over a drug offense - was given $35 and a "good luck".

Edit: By the way, his career was ruined the moment he became accountable for one of the worst data breaches in history - this conviction isn't what ruined his career as a CIO.

View on HN

That's not correct. He gained $550k by selling his stock. That was money he could have cashed out at any time.

By trading on insider information, he saved himself $117k in future losses (though not really because over time, I'm sure the stock will fully recover if it hasn't already). Thus the fine of $117k claws back everything that he gained due to his insider trading.

Plus, an additional $55k in fines. Plus who knows how much in lawyer fees. And then of course a criminal record that won't help with future employment prospects.

Sure, I can admit that I was wrong about his "net profit" for his crime, because that number was eyeballed.

However, the pedantry I made myself vulnerable to doesn't really change my point that he's getting a disproportionately easier sentence than a drug offender would get.

I agree. But I think the solution is lighter sentencing for drug crimes, rather than higher sentencing for white collar crimes.

>By trading on insider information, he saved himself $117k in future losses

Sure, we know that NOW, but at the time he could have lost enormously more. If he KNEW that was going to be his total loss it's quite possible he never would have risked it.

... ya, but seems like giving a bigger punishment based on that logic would be like throwing the book at a bank robber because they "could have" gotten away with millions. Even though they were only able to get $100k before making a getaway.

The impact of this charge is much greater than $500k. How much in fees did he pay lawyers to get the plea deal? What are the chances he will get hired as a CIO again? This has significantly long-lasting impact on his life and career.

The same applies to literally everyone who gets indicted and goes to jail.

What exactly is your point?

That he did not get off the hook with minimal impact to his life. That it is not simply “4 months in jail” and a whole bunch of extra cash in his pocket.

You’re conflating the inherent, natural consequences of the crime he committed with the legal consequences...

His sentence was very light.

That you have consequences to crime outside the judicial system... again, is something everyone has.

It applies the same to the guy selling a little weed on the side who loses his day job when he gets busted as it does to the CIO who does a little insider trading on the side and loses his day job when busted. Everyone loses their job when busted. Especially when the crime is related to betraying the hand that feeds you.

There's absolutely zero reason to bring up the loss of job as punishment, unless you are trying to subtly defend the sentencing without actually having to take up that position explicitly with clear arguments.

Frankly, I don't think "not being able to be a CIO" is a very serious impact, especially as he's demonstrated his lack of ethical reasoning in such a position. There's plenty of upper-management IT positions that he could downgrade to and still make well into the six-figure range. I'm not saying he's escaping unscathed - I'm saying he's getting away RELATIVELY unscathed compared to what lower-income convicts go through.

He's going to be just fine, and there isn't any way you could frame his situation to be worse than what drug offenders are put through.

> I'm not saying he's escaping unscathed - I'm saying he's getting away RELATIVELY unscathed compared to what lower-income convicts go through.

Makes sense. I’m totally in agreement here.

Sure, the punishments are disproportionate. I think everyone knows this.

I still don't think 4 months for insider trading is inappropriate, in most of the EU you'd probably not go to prison at all.

Sentences for drug offenses are insane, that doesn't mean sentences for victimless insider trading should be too. Why make things worse when you could make them better?

I'm not necessarily advocating for harsher sentencing anywhere, but there definitely needs to be an attempt to balance the scales. And if we don't keep pointing out this clear disparity, we can expect nothing to change. That's solely the motive of my comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com