3 ms·
Reckless intent requires that the person knew there is was significant risk of the guilty act happening (e.g. driving with your eyes closed to show off has a li
by gnode 8y ago
Reckless intent requires that the person knew there is was significant risk of the guilty act happening (e.g. driving with your eyes closed to show off has a likely and known risk of causing injury and death). I don't think we can just assume that market makers thought their actions were likely to upend the economy.
- heavenlyblue 8y agoYeah. But in this scenario reckless driving provides personal gains for the owners of the businesses. What if you can invent new methods of "reckless driving" before they are put in the legal system and thus reap their benefits? It's just like designer drugs.
- gnode 8y ago> It's just like designer drugs. I think an important distinction is that drug prohibition often works in terms of specific chemicals by statute. E.g. drug X is now illegal for use and distribution. Securities fraud law instead works in concepts and intentions and is fleshed out by case law. E.g. did the seller give the buyer sufficient information for the buyer not to have been defrauded? A better analogy to securities using chemicals would be poisoning. The law doesn't need to catch up to specific chemicals; if it's evident that you wilfully, or recklessly added a poison to someone's food, it's illegal, and it doesn't matter how you did it. If it turns out that some ingredient is unknowingly toxic and the whole industry was adding it, then it's difficult to argue criminal intent. The SEC is more like the FDA, than it is the DEA.