Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by Tenacious D, May 25, 2018.
so if your employee goes and kills someone that's exactly the same as you killing someone? got it
If my employee kills someone, and there is some benefit to me for it, it definitely casts some shade on me. Especially if there are rumors. Especially if there are odd incidents.
And, we're still talking about Musk. Who has already had some looks due to some questionable tweets that looked a lot like manipulation.
Tweets similar to what you called fraud when done by the meme stock crowd on Reddit last year or the year before.
It shouldn't be hard to put all these together. It's fraud all the way around, regardless of how good your lawyers are.
there was no benefit for buffett. the employee did it for his own benefit. the only shade was he was one of buffett's top executives. and I hardly am a big buffett fan.
no meme stock people have gotten arrested either. i think the short sellers have a very good argument to sue musk for his buyout tweet, but he didn't sell any of his stock or buy any additional stock so it's not securities fraud.
This is nothing more than legal hand wringing. And it's pure sophistry.
It's a benefit. Musk driving prices up to help him get loans or allow for more margin trading is manipulation.
The sophistry here is that you want to define the line at legal vs illegal, for something that 99% can't do anyway.
This may come as a shock, but laws aren't written for the 1%.
Holding on to legal vs illegal is just crap.
if that's what he did it's absolutely illegal, but those tweets were well before he said he'd buy twitter. at least a year. by that point it was out of the stock. if there's a financial benefit, it's illegal. that's a financial benefit. and again he'd still be liable for any damaged parties.
He paid a $20 million dollar fine for it. It was straight illegal, and because he's a bajillioaire, he did no time. Because money heals all.
You should make a bunch of money so you can have these advantages too.
he did no time because there was no financial benefit. no one is going to jail for that. not all securities fraud results in jail time. most does not.
SEC investigations are civil, not criminal. The SEC can charge individuals and entities for violating the federal securities laws and seek remedies such as monetary penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, injunctions, and restrictions on an individual’s ability to work in the securities industry or to serve as an officer or director of a public company, but the SEC cannot put people in jail. Enforcement may refer potential criminal cases to criminal law enforcement authorities for investigation or coordinate SEC investigations with criminal investigations involving the same conduct. If a person is convicted of a criminal violation of the securities laws, a court may sentence that person to serve time in jail.
There is absolutely a financial benefit.
Yes, the original statement was that these people don't go to jail for their fraud.
And you've somehow made this in to only criminal activity that doesn't go to jail.
You're stating the obvious. The SEC isn't a law enforcement agency, nor are they a court.
Of course they cannot put people in jail.
SEC: "ill-gotten gains"
Droski: "Not a financial benefit."
what was the financial benefit?
where's the mention of ill gotten gains in the musk case? thanks much.
Stock price went up, short sellers lost, that's a win for the company, and all the secondary things that results from, which are, as already stated, being able to lend against the price, in propped up consumer confidence.
The point, which you've missed, is that clearly, financial benefit doesn't necessarily trigger criminal.
Making your requirement of it, sophistry.
uh that's not a financial benefit. there is no evidence he borrowed money after the tweet. again the twitter purchase was YEARS later.
This has nothing to do with Twitter. This is a billionaire, who committed fraud, and bought his way out of it.
As you requested.
While talking about the possibility of the same asshole doing it again!
clearly according to who? you?
The SEC. If they can bring a civil suit based on ill gotten gains, that doesn't trigger criminal, then there you go.
They reason they have it as an enumerated power is because they can.
Separate names with a comma.