4 ms·
It goes to intent. Typically the law tries to at least somewhat take into account intent, like if someone omits something from a filing by accident or in a del
by CPLX 8y ago
It goes to intent.
Typically the law tries to at least somewhat take into account intent, like if someone omits something from a filing by accident or in a deliberate attempt to conceal, for example.
Pointing out his statements demonstrates that he's aware of the rules and is choosing not to respect them. That's usually a sign that someone should be on the higher end of the typical punishment range for a given act.
- buboard 8y agoso, the intent was not to mislead investors, but to insult the fcc. snowflake committees much
- joshuamorton 8y agoNo, the intent is that he doesn't take the secs censure seriously. It helps to address the question of if this was an honest mistake or not, and the judgement will likely take that into account.
- jacques_chester 8y agoThe SEC are arguing that civil contempt doesn't require intent. But they also point out that yeah, maybe he's doing it on purpose.
- Derek_MK 8y agoEspecially in the case of contempt of court. The whole reason why you'd hold someone in contempt is if they are willfully not doing what the court says. The SEC is telling the court "Look, he's literally here talking about how he doesn't respect us. He's willingly doing this."