The Second Circuit upheld the 2017 insider trading conviction of Appellant, a patent attorney, rejecting his challenge to the sufficiency of the government’s evidence.  Although Appellant conceded that he disclosed information regarding a planned acquisition to a friend over dinner, he testified that he intended his comments to be a joke or brag and that he did not intend for the alleged tippee to trade while in possession of the material nonpublic information.  Appellant argued on appeal that the government failed to prove such intent.  The Second Circuit disagreed, finding that the government had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that supported an inference of intent and noting that the jury was free to disbelieve Appellant’s exculpatory testimony.

Second Circuit Opinion