251–260 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So she can’t be a director of a public company? Other than Yahoo, who would even consider hiring her? This “punishment” doesn’t seem like one. She should be in jail.
I don't know if I agree with you. Personally, I can't imagine the humiliation of carrying this around with me...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criminal litigation authority is on a whitelist, not a blacklist. It's not that a law restricted them, it's that they simply were never granted that authority. Random government authorities can't bring criminal proceedings anymore than the meter maid writing a parking ticket has the ability to haul you to court for parking in the wrong place. They send the information along to the people who do have that authority an…
> The key words in the article are "civil, not criminal". My keyword is why .
The concept of limited government demands that certain powers must be separated such that they never come together in the same person. That simple measure ensures that tyranny can arise only through conspiracy, cooperation, and collusion between multiple bad actors, rather than just one person acting alone. Why can't your HOA put you in jail for not mowing your lawn often enough? Because the kind of petty nagging nitpicking bastard that typically volunteers to serve on the HOA enforcement committee makes the absolute worst kind of cop. The power goes right to their heads, and they abuse the heck out of it to further their own goals and agenda.
The question we should be asking is why do the federal criminal investigators and prosecutors seem to pay less attention to financial crimes referred to them by the SEC than they attend to other crimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fake it til you make it" generally refers to acting like you believe in yourself even if you're filled with self-doubt. Not actual fraud.
As with anything there is the way in which something is offered and the way in which it is consumed. I have encountered many people who have internalized "fake it" to mean "pretend that you are hitting all your milestones and you executing against your plan". These folks see this as a way to keep the questions of why they aren't actually doing all of that at bay because later when they are "making it" those questions…
This is 100% correct. I also know a fair number entrepreneurs who engage (or have engaged) in exactly what you describe. Also, it's a short and murky step from many of the "naughty" stories that are lauded in entrepreneur lore, to outright fraud. Too often, we make post hoc rationalizations for unethical behavior, based on outcome.
It's a huge dilemma if you want to behave ethically, but you're competing with lots of people who don't have that limitation.
Ugh Finally. More than just the financial fraud, these folks engaged in behavior that actively endangered the public. I hope this isn't the end of the government actions against them. Her public behavior was exceptionally bizarre and almost none of what's been revealed comes as any real surprise. For timeline purposes: Dec 24, 2017 - They get $100m lifeline investment https://www.wsj.com/articles/blood-testing-firm-t…
pls reorder in time-sequence typo: $25 ==> $25mm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This will wipe her out, and likely kill her career. Remember, this is just the SEC. The pain they inflict is commensurate to investor pain. The government still should go after them for endangering people’s lives. There should be long jail terms for that.
> The government still should go after them for endangering people’s lives. There should be long jail terms for that. But the SEC won't, because that's not what they do. And this is, I think, as it should be.
Won’t see a day of jail time while Shkrelli gets 7 years.
More seriously, this is why often people who know they've been caught dead-to-rights settle early: the government wants the W and doesn't want to have to spend money to get it. Shkrelli made them go for the conviction, and so he got the actual, un-discounted penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> based on everything they had on Holmes ... and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved. Not only is the decision on the threshold political, but the risk itself is determined by the resources at the defendant's disposal. I am not saying that their decision is necessarily biased against poor people, but…
"and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved" - you are alleging that in this specific case there was politically determined something - without any evidence whatsoever.
There is no allegation of pulling strings and getting SEC lawyers to decide something based on her name, her connections. They act according to policy, based only on objective measures of the case.
But, it can be the policy of the SEC to objectively consider chances of winning (or getting a fraud conviction) and proceed to trial only if the chances are better than 90%, and it can be the policy of the SEC to go to trial on even 10% chances of winning, to generate as many fraud convictions as possible (at great expense to the tax payer).
Both policies are valid (I think), and the choice is political (subjective). A presidential candidate might get elected on a platform that includes going harder after well connected rich people doing white collar crimes, and then appoint a new head of the SEC to enact this new policy of being willing to spend more money to try to get people in jail for fraud.
> Holmes — a Steve Jobs wannabe who dressed exclusively in black turtlenecks — settled with the regulators for $500,000 while neither admitting nor denying the accusations. What Holmes did is most likely a fraud... but what the regulators did in this part above is pure and simple blackmail and extortion... the only problem is that who's gonna prosecute the persecutors.... This is really not far from wild wild west hu…
Settling out of court is blackmail and extortion?
If they thought they were innocent they could have had their day in court but instead they basically pleaded "no contest" and took their lumps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that people are better off with a quick resolution rather than a court case is also a political statement, as it's an opinion on what we as a society should value.
no. people are better off with a quick resolution because professional attorneys at the SEC decided that the legal case against Holmes is not strong enough to waste taxpayer money trying to PROVE she committed a crime. Calling their decision into question without a shred of evidence that they did something suboptimal, based on your political beliefs alone, is what I am advocating against. EDIT: Which part of this sta…