Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#211

Post by dforrestwilson » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

pmcollins wrote: post #94

chollida1 wrote: post #5

The sad piece of karma in all of this is that Musk tweeted in an effort to destroy the shorts. His tweet turned out to: - give the shorts a big dip in his stock, - an investigation by the SEC - an investigation by the DOJ - the backing off of a deep pocketed investor in the Saudis - Him potentially being personally liable, which would mean having to step away from SpaceX and Tesla if he was found guilty of fraud. Thi…

> Musk tweeted in an effort to destroy the shorts Is there any evidence that this was his intent? How do you know that he didn't actually intend to take the company private?

A long list of investors publicly denied any talks with Tesla. All potential banks expressed puzzlement with the tweet as well. One of them would absolutely have to be involved for a deal of this size and none were.

Reporters asked everyone and found 0 evidence.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#212

Post by stephengillie » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

ivraatiems wrote: post #167

philwelch wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would sell Tesla to a large conglomerate that actually understands car production, like Toyota or VW.

Isn't there a good chance they'd just mothball the whole company and keep on making regular gasoline-engine cars?

Toyota already has plug-in cars that use lithium batteries. They'd probably merge Tesla into Lexus and open the Supercharger network to anyone who could pay.

Have to wonder if Toyota still have the keys to the NUMMI plant.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#213

Post by WoahNow » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:36 PM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #177

chollida1 wrote: post #5

The sad piece of karma in all of this is that Musk tweeted in an effort to destroy the shorts. His tweet turned out to: - give the shorts a big dip in his stock, - an investigation by the SEC - an investigation by the DOJ - the backing off of a deep pocketed investor in the Saudis - Him potentially being personally liable, which would mean having to step away from SpaceX and Tesla if he was found guilty of fraud. Thi…

It would be a (possibly huge) blow to our future as a planet if he were banned from being an executive of a company for even just 2 years. I hope for humanity's sake that it doesn't come to that.

What makes you believe that? All the major car companies are making EVs and there are several SpaceX competitors (Blue Origin in particular). The SolarCity side of Tesla's business is declining, but there are still many companies offering solar installations.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#214

Post by harryh » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

leesec wrote: post #205

harryh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "lied on twitter" part is now clear. He said he had funding secured for a buyout at $420 which he has now basically admitted was not true. The "cause financial harm to people shorting Tesla stock" is a bit of speculation but it seems basically obvious to all observers.

Obvious does not mean provable in a court of law. He also tweeted this: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688?lang=... Was this some elaborate stock exploitation? I don't mind the investigation but this whole thing, especially all the hate, like he ruined short sellers lives ( the stock is way down since the tweet ), is insane to me.

I actually do think your linked tweet is problematic (though on a much smaller scale than the "secured funding" one). While obviously a joke, it was at the very least an irresponsible one from a public company CEO and definitely could be viewed as an attempt to manipulate algorithmic traders via the dissemination of misinformation.

CEOs have a legal duty to their shareholders and the public to communicate about their companies in a clear an honest manner.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#215

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

vel0city wrote: post #203

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That telegraphs a pretty lenient stance on misstatements that aren't completely fabricated American commercial law goes out of its way to avoid criminalizing stupidity. At a certain level, the difference between a genius and a madman is the genius was correct. They are indifferentiable without the benefit of hindsight. The nail in Elon's coffin (or lack thereof) will probably revolve around the degree to which he d…

> The nail in Elon's coffin (or lack thereof) will probably revolve around the degree to which he documented his animus towards short sellers in the days leading up to the misstatement. That and if he's able to show he really thought funding could have been secured but fell through. IIRC we still don't know the full story on that.

> if he's able to show he really thought funding could have been secured but fell through

"Funding secured" and "funding to be secured" are materially different terms. The point of "secured" is it's been bindingly, definitively agreed upon in a way that makes falling through very, very difficult.

His best defense is, absurdly, arguing a seasoned CEO doesn't understand what "funding secured" means. He might be about to inject enough doubt into a jury to avoid criminal charges, but I don't think that will outweigh the preponderance of evidence which is required for a civil judgement.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#216

Post by orcdork » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

S_A_P wrote: post #53

Sometimes its possible to care so much that you lose sight of what is important. This happened to Elon. I think this will be a case study someday about CEO ethics. I found it very interesting that when he was on the Joe Rogan podcast he had so much to say about social media, and none of it was complementary. How he did not see the dichotomy of his twitter use and this situation strikes me as humorous. I feel like Elo…

"Sometimes its possible to care so much that you lose sight of what is important."

Oh come on.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#217

Post by rootusrootus » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #171

rootusrootus wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He fits the legal definition of natural born citizen.

are IVF children disqualified? Legal citation on the natural born question, please.

He is a citizen by birth, not through naturalization.

IVF is irrelevant if the biological parents are known and in a relationship, or if the birth is inside the U.S. In particular you cannot gain citizenship through donated sperm, though.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#218

Post by atonse » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #200

lgeorget wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm a bit off-topic but sometimes I really fail to understand the USA culture. You can make the most outrageous and racist comments because of "freedom of expression" but making speculators lose their shit with a couple of tweets is a "textbook crime" for which you should "go to jail".

It's because of the belief that specific acts shouldn't be illegal, just the negative effects caused by those acts. People can say racist things all they want, but if there isn't anyone actually being harmed by it, should they be punished by the government? It's like with Musk, he's not being investigated for a stupid tweet, he's being investigated for a stupid tweet that appears to have been made with the purpose of…

To add to this good explanation, that's also why slander and libel are not protected forms of speech (but they do have high standards of evidence).

You can call a person a million names to their face, but if you publish an article or book saying you think that person's a thief, and that person's life was ruined because nobody would hire them anymore, then yes you're potentially opening yourself up to legal action.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#219

Post by baddox » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

lgeorget wrote: post #140

atonse wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As sad as this makes me (because I want Tesla to be wildly successful), I have to agree. This is textbook and brazen stock manipulation, a flat out crime.

I guess I'm a bit off-topic but sometimes I really fail to understand the USA culture. You can make the most outrageous and racist comments because of "freedom of expression" but making speculators lose their shit with a couple of tweets is a "textbook crime" for which you should "go to jail".

Although that is definitely an oversimplification (there are plenty of limitations to freedom of expression), why is your description particularly odd or difficult to understand? If an executive at a public company makes misleading public statements with the intention to cause certain transactions (which may or may not be the case here), that's a pretty clear financial crime with clear victims. I don't see why jail time would be out of the question.

If you just make "outrageous" comments on twitter, why is it weird that "USA culture" wouldn't generally prescribe jail time? I'm from the USA, granted, but that sure seems like a reasonable protection of freedom of expression.

Racist comments are of course a trickier example, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for there to be a legal distinction between (protected) tasteless/offensive/insensitive statements about race/ethnicity and (not protected) statements that defame or incite violence.

Re: Tesla Faces U.S. Criminal Probe Over Musk Statements

#220

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Sep 18, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

abalone wrote: post #121

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That telegraphs a pretty lenient stance on misstatements that aren't completely fabricated American commercial law goes out of its way to avoid criminalizing stupidity. At a certain level, the difference between a genius and a madman is the genius was correct. They are indifferentiable without the benefit of hindsight. The nail in Elon's coffin (or lack thereof) will probably revolve around the degree to which he d…

Nah, it's clear Musk hates short sellers. That's not the issue. Nor is his desire to hurt them. The question is whether he had scienter when misstating the finality of the deal he was negotiating.

> That's not the issue. Nor is his desire to hurt them.

That's a huge issue. If he made his misstatements with the intent of hurting short sellers, that's criminal fraud. If he just made a material misstatement, with no intent to harm anyone, it's a civil case.