Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 189 posts

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#141

Post by joquarky »

ok123456 wrote: post #94
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading "Stewart was found guilty on charges including conspiracy and obstruction of justice" [1]. She sold shares on inside information. She went to jail for lying to investigators about it. [1] https://people.com/martha-stewart-fraud-case-prison-sentence...

There was no insider trading. She thought she was in trouble and made up a story for the investigators that it was a limit order, which she was convicted of. While lying is bad, this was a case of overzealous prosecution because it was a high-profile case and an inappropriate use of resources. Instead of prison, they should have just had her do some cheezy PSAs and enter in to a deferred prosecution agreement. I find…

When are these "risk takers" ever taking a risk if their behavior is always excused?

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#142

Post by adrr »

nullorempty wrote: post #10
_akhe wrote: post #2

Securities fraud again, funny that the guy who "bought Twitter" and shut down free speech ended up getting sued himself due to his own tweet (lying about # of Teslas being produced). It's like a bully trying to chase someone but tripping over their shoelace in the first step, love it. On self-driving: For several years the guy has been saying "next month" "next year" it's been like 10+ years at this point. He's a big…

I think Musk is just relaying the promises he receives from ML/AI guys he employes. As far as I know FSD has always been a paid option.

I am sure if he allowed customers to get refunds on FSD, the DOJ wouldn't open a criminal case.

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#143

Post by orwin »

_akhe wrote: post #122
snarf21 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all need to remember Musk wasn't the founder. He was an early investor that forced the founders out. We can argue about whether the founders would have been more/less successful but he didn't found Tesla. [ https://www.theverge.com/23815634/tesla-elon-musk-origin-fou... ]

Elon "take-n-tank" Musk the brand destroyer lol I have an even funnier one for you: That viral video of when he was bald and bought that very expensive McLaren... "It's the highlight of my life" he said shortly before totaling the car with no insurance. "He's a genius!"

Wow, if he's a McLaren fan, i guess going for looks over practicality is not surprising! (I'm joking, but not really).

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#144

Post by ksherlock »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #96
ok123456 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no insider trading. She thought she was in trouble and made up a story for the investigators that it was a limit order, which she was convicted of. While lying is bad, this was a case of overzealous prosecution because it was a high-profile case and an inappropriate use of resources. Instead of prison, they should have just had her do some cheezy PSAs and enter in to a deferred prosecution agreement. I find…

> was no insider trading "Martha Stewart, the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, also became embroiled in the scandal after it emerged that her broker, Peter Bacanovic, tipped her off that ImClone was about to drop. In response, Stewart sold about $230,000 in ImClone shares on December 27, 2001, a day before the announcement of the FDA decision" [1]. It’s far from fact that she did not trade on inside inform…

"Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary. The SEC sued Mark Cuban [1] for "committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading" under similar circumstances. But he kept his mouth shut, didn't destroy evidence, and didn't lie to the FBI. Did he trade on "inside information"? Sure. But the Jury found him not guilty of insider trading.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider_trading...

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#145

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ksherlock wrote: post #144
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was no insider trading "Martha Stewart, the founder of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, also became embroiled in the scandal after it emerged that her broker, Peter Bacanovic, tipped her off that ImClone was about to drop. In response, Stewart sold about $230,000 in ImClone shares on December 27, 2001, a day before the announcement of the FDA decision" [1]. It’s far from fact that she did not trade on inside inform…

"Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary. The SEC sued Mark Cuban [1] for "committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading" under similar circumstances. But he kept his mouth shut, didn't destroy evidence, and didn't lie to the FBI. Did he trade on "inside information"? Sure. But the Jury found him not guilty of insider trading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider…

> "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary

Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined.

Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#146

Post by erikerikson »

_akhe wrote: post #124
erikerikson wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how you'd see the "dance" but anyway... I'd hold the "visited decisive politics" hypothesis at a much higher probability over "celebrity parasocial loyalties" for down and up voting in this case. That said, trying to guess at the motivations of the diverse crowd here is fraught at best.

Really you've never seen a comment of yours bounce around negative and positive on polarizing issues? It's kinda cool to see, makes this platform feel more solid than others. > celebrity loyalty You must have missed that meme https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/477/624/072... It was in response to the insufferable worship happening in comment sections everywhere. I wonder how much he was paying for PR ea…

I have seen mine be down voted at times and then later up voted but not in a responsive sense. Have I missed a feature or maybe you're using an outside reader?

Regardless, I've only noticed for my own account. Perhaps you own both accounts?

I completely miss all the memes as a rule, thanks for sharing.

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#147

Post by _akhe »

tromp wrote: post #45
deegles wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could have been avoided just by calling it "Partial Self Driving" and then everything would be above board.

Or "Fool's Self Driving" to preserve the pronunciation:-)

Haha I like the Fool's Gold analogy because his family owned an Emerald company in Zambia:

  "During that time," said Errol, speaking to Elon's college years, "I managed to send money I made from emerald sales to him and [Elon's brother, Kimbal Musk] for living expenses."

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#148

Post by ok123456 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145
ksherlock wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary. The SEC sued Mark Cuban [1] for "committing securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading" under similar circumstances. But he kept his mouth shut, didn't destroy evidence, and didn't lie to the FBI. Did he trade on "inside information"? Sure. But the Jury found him not guilty of insider trading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban#SEC_insider…

> "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined. Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.

It was third-party hearsay. The stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials, only the movement some of his clients were making.

This is why she wasn't tried on insider trading, but instead on the story she made up to cover the fact that she was given this knowledge indirectly.

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#149

Post by ProxCoques »

peutetre wrote: post #98
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Almost ready" as a claim is pretty meaningless. It's a statement of feature status, not a prediction of when 100% completion occurs. In software, "almost" can last years or decades.

In 2019 Musk claimed there would "for sure" be over a million Tesla robotaxis on the road by the end of 2020: https://www.thedrive.com/news/38129/elon-musk-promised-1-mil... That was a lie.

Thanks - I'll add that one to my timeline: https://webtorque.org/fsd-timeline.html

Re: Tesla is being investigated for securities and wire fraud for self-driving claim

#150

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ok123456 wrote: post #148
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Insider trading" doesn't have a well defined boundary Correct. In our courts it’s ambiguously defined. Colloquially, Stewart got a tip-off that arose from the non-public outcome of a drug trial. Whether she committed insider trading is open; whether she traded—knowingly or unknowingly—on material non-public information is pretty clear.

It was third-party hearsay. The stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials, only the movement some of his clients were making. This is why she wasn't tried on insider trading, but instead on the story she made up to cover the fact that she was given this knowledge indirectly.

> stock tip came from her stock broker, who also happened to handle transactions for people with inside knowledge. The broker didn't know the details about the FDA trials

Source? Not disputing the broker was facilitating others’ insider trades, but if they were, it takes the suspicion to a whole new level around why this broker is so comfortable with his clients with potential insider status making large bets just ahead of corporate events.

Post reply on HN