AND · 15usc78j:willfulness
Criminal prosecution derives its willfulness requirement from §78ff(a), not express wording in §78j(b). Afriyie approved knowing/willful/intent-to-defraud instructions in an insider-trading prosecution and held the government retained the beyond-reasonable-doubt burden. The precise instruction must fit the charged theory.
Exact element source
any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivanceSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title15.jsonl#title15_sec78j; Unicode character offsets [907:958] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8ceaded2a57e5b49e22a4766033c8899ebfd730667700a031b8db7f80ea91e32.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Afriyie — 929 F.3d 63 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not reached · basis not recorded (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Afriyie — 929 F.3d 63 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 — not reached (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed) | Additional criminal mental-state requirement | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits count: Count One securities fraud; subject: count=Count One securities fraud The affirmed instruction leaves proof of knowing, willful, intentional fraud beyond reasonable doubt with the government. No finding that civil recklessness alone proves criminal willfulness is encoded. | criminal-instruction/burden-and-good-faith | On February 16, Apollo publicly announced its planned acquisition of ADT. ADT's stock price rose by 47.5%, and the value of Afriyie's investment in ADT call options increased by 6,000% in one day. Over the course of the following week, Afriyie sold his options for a total profit of $1,564,071.60. In late February and March 2016, he wired a portion of the proceeds out of his brokerage account and into a separate savings account.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0063-01; Unicode character offsets [3048:3479] (end exclusive); SHA-256 dacb34ef671a500f5fe9fe2db4716722b74b4cd01340dbfc18b443985f46e723.If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt ... that the defendant engaged in an insider trading scheme, it must then prove that the defendant engaged in that scheme knowingly, willfully, and with intent to defraud MSD Capital .... It is for you to determine whether the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt such knowledge and intent on the part of the defendant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0063-01; Unicode character offsets [9094:9480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 dacb34ef671a500f5fe9fe2db4716722b74b4cd01340dbfc18b443985f46e723.Because an essential element of the crime charged is intent to defraud, good faith on the part of the defendant is a complete defense to the charge of insider trading. That is, the law is not violated if the defendant held an honest belief that his acts were proper and not [in] furtherance of any unlawful scheme. A person who acts on a belief or reason honestly held that turns out to be wrong is not punishable under these statutes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0063-01; Unicode character offsets [9481:9916] (end exclusive); SHA-256 dacb34ef671a500f5fe9fe2db4716722b74b4cd01340dbfc18b443985f46e723.There was therefore no error in the district court's good faith instruction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0063-01; Unicode character offsets [10670:10746] (end exclusive); SHA-256 dacb34ef671a500f5fe9fe2db4716722b74b4cd01340dbfc18b443985f46e723. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt ... that the defendant engaged in an insider trading scheme, it must then prove that the defendant engaged in that scheme knowingly, willfully, and with intent to defraud MSD Capital .... It is for you to determine whether the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt such knowledge and intent on the part of the defendant.
United States v. Afriyie — 929 F.3d 63 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019 (15usc78j: author: Astra2 · not independently reviewed)
If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt ... that the defendant engaged in an insider trading scheme, it must then prove that the defendant engaged in that scheme knowingly, willfully, and with intent to defraud MSD Capital .... It is for you to determine whether the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt such knowledge and intent on the part of the defendant.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_929.jsonl#/f3d/929/0063-01; Unicode character offsets [9094:9480] (end exclusive); SHA-256 dacb34ef671a500f5fe9fe2db4716722b74b4cd01340dbfc18b443985f46e723.Criminal prosecution derives its willfulness requirement from §78ff(a), not express wording in §78j(b). Afriyie approved knowing/willful/intent-to-defraud instructions in an insider-trading prosecution and held the government retained the beyond-reasonable-doubt burden. The precise instruction must fit the charged theory.