21–30 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we know which of the two publications has prepublication review of content by the Communist Party of China.
It raises a valid question: How to find reliable sources for stories such as this? Is it even possible, concerning the usual secrecy of similar processes?
Even if you think it's unjust, you can't change it if you're dead.
I don't know. 80% returns? Really? She was able to get 80% returns? GUARANTEED? This lady kind of sounds like a potential Madoff who got caught early. Yes, she may be totally innocent. That is one of many possibilities. Having mentioned that... man... 80%? guaranteed? Trading Futures? Maybe the punishment is a bit harsh, but it really does seem she was not totally on the up and up. And secondly, what kind of a person…
"A bit harsh" is a lot of an understatement. They're talking about killing her .
I dislike capital punishment for several reasons, in particular the greater potential to be applied falsely, but I do not feel that Madoff's sentence is substantially less harsh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You make it sound like the Chinese source is not to be trusted, and you may be right. But this story shows that the Economist is just as trustworthy as any Chinese communist sources (i.e., not very trustworthy). The Chinese source states: "The money was used for Wu's personal consumption and in paying back the loans and operation costs of her company, said the court." Now this is a quote from the court which is somet…
"Nevertheless the Economist made it sound that she was only persecuted for accepting financing from unofficial sources, not that she was doing anything improper with the financing." I can't agree with that. I read only the Economist article before coming to the comments here, and I managed to figure out that she was being charged with active fraud. I figured it out from things like mentioning a promise of an 80% retu…
(If you ignore the "China is Evil" bit for a minute) It kind of makes sense: you steal money from a country, maybe go to jail for a bit, leave the country, reunited with all your stolen money. Not so good.
This Economist article paints a very different picture from the article below: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_920158... Businesswoman gets death sentence for defrauding investors out of tens of millions of dollars vs. Businesswoman gets death sentence for fundraising
Still, a death sentence?
Edit: I shouldn't attempt irony on the interwebz. Barbaria was said with a wink at history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A bit harsh" is a lot of an understatement. They're talking about killing her .
+1, Cmon how can you kill someone for raising money, regardless of its whereabouts or accompanied false promises... "A bit harsh", my god, get a grip
Does this mean angel investing is illegal in China. I am not sure what "raising and pooling money outside the official system" really means.
Angel investing in US has the requirement of being Accredited Investors by law, so no you can't just angel investing willy nilly but follows the law (or "official system"). The comparable scale of punishment is another story; on the other hand a few people would wish Madoff was tried in a Chinese court for defaulting people.
This Economist article paints a very different picture from the article below: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/18/content_920158... Businesswoman gets death sentence for defrauding investors out of tens of millions of dollars vs. Businesswoman gets death sentence for fundraising
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A bit harsh" is a lot of an understatement. They're talking about killing her .
How is execution different than 150 years in prison, aside from the chance to be exonerated later? Madoff's life is just about as thoroughly destroyed as Wu's. They will both die in prison. I dislike capital punishment for several reasons, in particular the greater potential to be applied falsely, but I do not feel that Madoff's sentence is substantially less harsh.