2-88-1 [Nomura’s case]: They were an easy target of the spy eventually to fire the CEO

There was a huge investigation into the insider trading in 2012. It basically started to crack me down but escalated to the biggest inspection against the whole industry in Japan. The CIA and police intelligence succeeded to energize investigators to search for the insider case including financial regulators, but they had no right to control a size of the operation.

 

It basically meant that they could not have just denounced me, rather investigated many dubious transactions recorded in the security brokers. In this way, the spy was able to access any records of mine with a formal investigation.

 

Nomura security got targeted during this inspection, as they were not backed by any governments. The Japanese police had no reason to cover up the story of Nomura, but the CIA and other foreign intelligence protected their financial companies from a potential damage caused in this course.

 

In the end, the CEO of Nomura resigned his position after a wrongdoing of a few of their employees. It was a story in 2012 when they were fired due to a leak of the insider information which was said to be used for the insider trading. This was still not legally concluded, but it was highly likely that there was no such a leak of the insider information.

 

In any way, the FSA announced there was a complicity of the insider trading at Nomura, which triggered a resignation of the CEO and other managements in charge of institutional investors.

 

That was basically compelled by the FSA, which meant they believed this was an illegal transaction. Even if it was a misconduct, it was not illegal in those days for the security broker just to tell an insider information, as there was a flaw in the law.

 

The insider information is categorized as a wrongdoing, which might skew the market price formation with an unfair balance of the information. This type of the transactions was illegal in many countries, but there was no universal definition of the illegal conduct, which was technically defined by each country.

 

In this Nomura’s case, their deed was not categorized as an illegal in any way, which became factual through the on-going trial. However, the FSA believed this was illegal and executed their administrative power to have the CEO leave his post, which was apparently excessive.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s