2 ms·

If you read the article, you'll see that MIT specifically blacklisted Epstein from making donations as a result of his conviction, and Ito went behind their bac

If you read the article, you'll see that MIT specifically blacklisted Epstein from making donations as a result of his conviction, and Ito went behind their backs to keep getting money from him anyway. That's fraud, and MIT could definitely argue loss of reputation. I don't know if they'll go after Ito, but if they do, they'll have a pretty good case.

tptacek 7y ago
Out of curiosity, do you say this from firsthand knowledge as an expert in civil fraud law, or just in the message board sense of "it seems like they might have a pretty good case"?
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  I would be surprised if it was fraud. But it might be covered by this: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Section13.pdf https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Sectio... Essentially any argument that donated money accepted in good faith is stripped of its criminal origins is wholly wrong. If I steal a TV and donate it to a school, the police can recover the TV and return it to its owner. The fact that the school didn't know it was stolen is irrelevant. Donations sourced from criminal profits are a more complex example of the same long-established legal and moral principle. This is why the Sacklers are having such a time of it - the jury is still out on whether pushing opiates was actually criminal, but it's certainly not simply a civil case. And it's also why anyone who had any kind of association with Epstein is trying very hard to distance themselves from him. Which is why Ito's actions weren't just stupid, but could be considered criminal in their own right. There's no doubt Epstein was involved in some very nasty things. If profits from the nasty things were accepted unknowingly, then there's no criminal liability. But anyone who knowingly benefits from criminal acts risks being accused of being an accessory to them, even if the connection is purely financial.

tptacek 7y ago

Out of curiosity, do you say this from firsthand knowledge as an expert in civil fraud law, or just in the message board sense of "it seems like they might have a pretty good case"?

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I would be surprised if it was fraud. But it might be covered by this: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Section13.pdf https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Sectio... Essentially any argument that donated money accepted in good faith is stripped of its criminal origins is wholly wrong. If I steal a TV and donate it to a school, the police can recover the TV and return it to its owner. The fact that the school didn't know it was stolen is irrelevant. Donations sourced from criminal profits are a more complex example of the same long-established legal and moral principle. This is why the Sacklers are having such a time of it - the jury is still out on whether pushing opiates was actually criminal, but it's certainly not simply a civil case. And it's also why anyone who had any kind of association with Epstein is trying very hard to distance themselves from him. Which is why Ito's actions weren't just stupid, but could be considered criminal in their own right. There's no doubt Epstein was involved in some very nasty things. If profits from the nasty things were accepted unknowingly, then there's no criminal liability. But anyone who knowingly benefits from criminal acts risks being accused of being an accessory to them, even if the connection is purely financial.