论文格式：内幕交易有关共谋罪的判决
本案法院的判决是，奥利弗·柯蒂斯(Oliver Curtis)被判有罪，犯有与内幕交易有关的共谋罪。根据违反的分节和当时可以适用的刑罚，可以确定柯蒂斯先生被判处大约5年监禁，并因违反分节而必须支付大约22万美元的罚金。在柯蒂斯的背景下，法院还规定了对同谋者的必要惩罚，他就是约翰哈特曼(John Hartman, R v Curtis，第3号)[2016]NSWSC 866, 2016)。本案的背景是，拥有公司股票买卖信息的哈特曼先生为了自己的利益使用了这些信息。每当哈特曼先生看到这些信息时，他就利用这些信息帮助柯蒂斯先生获得合同或帮助他处理合同。这两种形式的个人利益信息共享被视为直接违反内幕交易法(R v Curtis (No . 3) [2016] NSWSC 866, 2016)。
论文格式：内幕交易有关共谋罪的判决
这次违约与哈特曼和柯蒂斯的协议有直接关系。协议很清楚，意图也很清楚。哈特曼为柯蒂斯获取了一些信息，这些信息帮助他获得并处置了对他有利的金融产品。猎户座资产管理有限公司的内部信息被用于本案。泄露这些信息的人约翰·哈特曼知道，这些信息之所以能够得到，是因为他的能力。任何不在办公室的人都没有能力或接触到哈特曼所拥有的信息。即使哈特曼所掌握的这类信息是合理可得的，也可以说，任何处于这种情况下的人都知道它将对销售和购买产生重大的财政和物质影响。
论文格式：内幕交易有关共谋罪的判决
The decision of the court in this case was that Oliver Curtis who was found guilty had committed an offense of conspiracy with respect to insider trading. Based on the subsections contravened and the penalty that could be applied at that time it was identified that Mr. Curtis was subject to a penalty of around 5 years in imprisonment and had to pay a fine of around $220,000 in pecuniary damages for the contravention of the subsections. The Court also laid down needed penalty for the co-conspirator in the context of Mr. Curtis, who was Mr. John Hartman (R v Curtis (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 866, 2016). The case context held was that Mr. Hartman who has the information for purchase and selling of the shares of the company had used that knowledge for the his own good. Whenever Mr. Hartman came across such information he had made use of the information to help Mr. Curtis in acquiring contracts or had assisted him in the disposal of contracts. Both forms of information sharing for personal benefits was seen to be a direct breach of the insider trading laws (R v Curtis (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 866, 2016).
论文格式：内幕交易有关共谋罪的判决
The breach was directly tied to the agreement shared by Hartman and Curtis. The agreement was clear and the intention was also clear. Hartman procured information for Curtis that helped him to acquire and dispose of financial products to his advantage. Orion Asset Management Limited’s inside information was used in this case. The person who divulged the information John Hartman knew that such information was only available because of his capacity. Any person who was outside the office would not have the capacity or the access to information that Hartman had. Even if such information that Hartman had could be reasonably available, it could be said that any other person in the situation would know it will have a significant financial and material effect on sales and purchases.
