Ex-Apple Lawyer Gene Levoff Dodges Jail, Fined for Insider Trading

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