Sydney banker Oliver Curtis will spend Christmas behind bars, after an appeal over his conviction for insider trading was dismissed this morning.
The 31-year-old father of two was sentenced to two years jail on 24 June, after a Sydney court found him to have illegally profited $1.433 million from confidential trading information provided to him by his best friend.
Curtis’ legal team lodged an appeal in July, shortly after his wife, PR mogul Roxy Jacenko, was diagnosed with breast cancer.
During the high-profile case, the court heard Curtis had made 45 trades based on price-sensitive information supplied by former Orion Asset Management employee John Hartman between May 2007 and June 2008.
Hartman agreed to help ASIC in their prosecution of Curtis as part of a bid for his reduced three-year sentence, leading to charges being laid against him in January 2013.
The Jacenko-Curtis family.
Today’s ruling comes just a day after Jacenko spoke to Who about cancelling Christmas plans due to her husband’s imprisonment.
“My mum said to me the other day, ‘I think I’m going to go and get a Christmas tree.’ And I said, ‘You can’t, because I told Pixie and Hunter their father would be home for Christmas’,” the 36-year-old said.
“It was so far away then… Now, here we are.”
Top Comments
Nice to see the dollars didn't buy him out this time. Here's a thought: how's about showing some humility and quietly doing your time? Ditto, Roxy deactivating social media and not plastering hideously expensive consumer everything across the internet would probably make her far more likeable on the whole (and therefore less in need of "please like me" publicity campaigns).
She should not have made promises to her kids she can't keep. Why ruin Christmas for them just because their dad isn't there? Plenty of kids have Christmas with only one parent for a variety of reasons.
My son won't be with me this Christmas and I didn't even break the law! Where's my 1.5 million for missing this day with him? 😂
So right - he was sentenced to 2 years in prison - she had no business promising her children what she did. Not up to the courts to grant her a favour. Seems a bit manipulative to me ...
Exactly! Hit the nail on the head.