2 ms·
> I said "accusing" and not "charging" for good reason. Thats not the issue, its just not embezzlement. I'll debate the finest points of embezzlement with yo
by rolltiide 7y ago
> I said "accusing" and not "charging" for good reason.
Thats not the issue, its just not embezzlement.
I'll debate the finest points of embezzlement with you. They accept that people gave him money for the widest discretion of use, like in every other token sale, or securities offering, so "embezzlement" is impossible. They don't like that it was unregistered, and if it was a registered offering there would have liked disclosures that contradicted his statements.
The only similarity to embezzlement is that the agency is trying to recover a fraction of money on behalf of investors.
Yes, his moving the funds was the impetus for the complaint, we don't disagree there.
- elliekelly 7y agoI wasn't debating, I was explaining. I'm a securities attorney so I'm quite familiar with the "finest points" of federal securities laws.
- rolltiide 7y agoEmbezzlement isn't a word mentioned in the complaint, and not paragraph 6, embezzlement has a specific meaning in federal criminal law. Why are you being so familiar in one area, and using hyperbole in another? Perhaps I misunderstand: Do you think embezzlement is a charge something the SEC will refer to the DOJ as well, or are we still unproductively debating semantics. If not semantics, which particular action do you consider embezzlement? The moving $2,000,000 upon notice of a potential charge? The actions in Paragraph 6 of selling something to an using the revenue to pay employees, debts and personal things? You make it seem like its just an accounting nuance, as if he should have paid himself a greater salary from company coffers to then pay for personal things.