Former Apple director of corporate law Gene Levoff was sentenced today to a fine and four years of probation for insider trading. Levoff faced up to two years in prison, but he will avoid incarceration.
Ex-Apple Lawyer Avoids Prison After Conviction
Gene Levoff's job at Apple was to ensure that Apple employees followed the company's insider trading procedures, including enforcing "blackout periods" around earnings announcements, but he ended up committing the crime he intended to police, per Bloomberg.
Because of his position, Levoff had access to Apple's financial reports before they were made public, which he utilized to acquire Apple shares prior to better-than-expected results and sell shares when profits were weaker than expected. Before being sacked by Apple in 2018, Levoff made roughly $277,000 and avoided losses of around $377,000.
Levoff pleaded guilty to six charges of securities fraud for insider trading in June, and he was sentenced today. Levoff will pay almost $604,000 in addition to four years probation.
Federal prosecutors claimed that Levoff should be imprisoned for insider trading to prevent future corporate executives from committing a similar crime, but the judge handling the case said it wasn't required because Levoff lost his job and would no longer be able to practice law.
Gene Levoff’s Abuse Of Privilege
Between 2011 and 2016, Levoff generated illicit gains of $604,000 on trades worth more than $14 million by taking advantage of his privileged access to Apple's draft Securities and Exchange Commission filings, per Law.com. He traded during quarterly blackout periods and made judgments based on nonpublic financial data, flagrantly breaking the company's insider trading policy, which he was meant to enforce.
His actions are significant because he serves on Apple's Disclosure Committee. Levoff's actions not only destroyed Apple's trust in him but also jeopardized the financial market's openness.
His flagrant disrespect for the regulations he intended to enforce calls into question the efficacy of internal compliance procedures. The case highlights the inherent conflict of interest that exists when individuals in positions of power participate in illegal actions, endangering company governance and public trust.
Photo: Medhat Dawoud/Unsplash


Norway’s Wealth Fund Backs Shareholder Push for Microsoft Human-Rights Risk Report
Australia Releases New National AI Plan, Opts for Existing Laws to Manage Risks
Banks Consider $38 Billion Funding Boost for Oracle, Vantage, and OpenAI Expansion
Wikipedia Pushes for AI Licensing Deals as Jimmy Wales Calls for Fair Compensation
Samsung Launches Galaxy Z TriFold to Elevate Its Position in the Foldable Smartphone Market
Apple Alerts EU Regulators That Apple Ads and Maps Meet DMA Gatekeeper Thresholds
ByteDance Unveils New AI Voice Assistant for ZTE Smartphones
Senate Sets December 8 Vote on Trump’s NASA Nominee Jared Isaacman
Taiwan Opposition Criticizes Plan to Block Chinese App Rednote Over Security Concerns
Hikvision Challenges FCC Rule Tightening Restrictions on Chinese Telecom Equipment
Firelight Launches as First XRP Staking Platform on Flare, Introduces DeFi Cover Feature
Quantum Systems Projects Revenue Surge as It Eyes IPO or Private Sale
Trump Administration to Secure Equity Stake in Pat Gelsinger’s XLight Startup
Nexperia Urges China Division to Resume Chip Production as Supply Risks Mount
Coupang Apologizes After Massive Data Breach Affecting 33.7 Million Users
Amazon and Google Launch New Multicloud Networking Service to Boost High-Speed Cloud Connectivity
Apple Appoints Amar Subramanya as New Vice President of AI Amid Push to Accelerate Innovation 



