[pushcx]

Left writes:

> The government’s position is that I should have known I couldn’t trade stocks I’d publicly praised—for some unspecified period of time. I didn’t lie, I simply traded too soon.

The criminal complaint is here, allegations begin on page 7: https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/andrew-le...

The part Left seems to be responding to in his article is:

> defendant LEFT often built his positions using inexpensive, short-dated options contracts that would expire within zero to five trading days and submitted limit orders to close his positions as soon as the Targeted Security reached a certain price.

The generic term for the government's allegations is not "the opposite of insider trading", it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_and_dump

[abigail95]

A pump and dump has to be false, misleading or deceptive. This is not the case here.

Edit: I have now read some of the complaint. This is just sec fraud, which is consistent with what the article is claiming. "The opposite of insider trading" ie trading in the direction of the advice you're giving.

Gov says the statements were material, false, with intent. If they can't prove false to the level of being a material statement they will lose.

Edit2: This comes right up to the line, whether it's material to have false/non-statements about your intentions. There's another case that will come up if you research this about whether intentions are material.