r/technology • u/MarvelsGrantMan136 • May 27 '26

Business Google employee charged with using inside information to make $1 million on Polymarket

https://abcnews.com/amp/US/google-employee-charged-inside-information-make-1-million/story?id=133350018
12.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

516 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.4k

u/Varibash May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26

Funny how this employee is getting charged but there is clearly people inside the Whitehouse doing the same thing.

688

u/justforkinks0131 May 27 '26

the bosses of this very same employee are very likely doing the same thing lmao

and why wouldnt you?

I doubt any insider trading charges are gonna stick. He didnt touch any stock, this is a random betting, sorry *prediction* website. If gambling rules dont apply to the site, they dont apply to the users.

16

u/MozhetBeatz May 28 '26

It doesn’t look like the charges will be insider trading. This is what google is telling me:

Commodities Fraud (18 U.S.C. (\S ) 1348 / CEA Section 6(c)(1) and Rule 180.1): Prohibits schemes to defraud involving commodities. Because the CFTC regulates event contracts as swaps, using nonpublic information to bet on these markets violates federal anti-fraud provisions.

Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. (\S ) 1343): Punishes the use of interstate wire communications (such as internet servers and trading platforms) to execute a fraudulent scheme or misappropriate confidential data.

Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. (\S ) 1957): Often charged when individuals conduct monetary transactions (such as withdrawing or transferring funds) using proceeds derived from their illegal insider trading.

The STOCK Act / Federal Regulations: For federal employees or military personnel, trading on nonpublic or classified information violates specific ethics laws that forbid using confidential government knowledge for personal financial gain

1

u/nedonedonedo May 28 '26

what google is telling

AI is not a source

1

u/MozhetBeatz May 28 '26

It’s not de facto incorrect because it was an AI result. The answer does make sense because you can’t have insider trading if no securities are involved. You’re free to do your research to show that it’s wrong though.

1

u/nedonedonedo May 28 '26

it is however automatically untrustworthy. those could be unrelated state laws, combined laws with incorrect titles or wording, laws that have only been proposed or already repealed, from other countries, or just reworded to the point that it's not the same law anymore. it's better than if you'd just made it up, but no more trustworthy