5 ms·

This family will likely be ruined by these charges. Even if they successfully defend against these charges, the lawyer fees will wreck them financially. Meanwh

This family will likely be ruined by these charges. Even if they successfully defend against these charges, the lawyer fees will wreck them financially. Meanwhile, Mr. Musk has literally gotten a slap on the wrist for multiple flagrant violations of securities law. There are definitely two justice systems in the US. The ultra-rich do not play by the same rules that you and I do.

filmgirlcw 6y ago
This is absolutely true but let’s not pretend this family didn’t violate the law here either. Like, there should be a middle ground between “if you’re rich enough, you get away with anything” and “it’s acceptable for a person in finance to share insider information with family members so they can profit.”
- bargl 6y ago
  >let’s not pretend this family didn’t violate the law here either. No actually, let's do pretend this family didn't violate the law here. Let's assume that allegedly means just that. We have this crazy double standard in the US, we want to assume the police are incompetent, but then when they accuse someone we assume they are guilty. How about we assume this is a competent accusation that may or may not be factual, and leave it to the courts to decide. Whether or not we believe the court system needs reform to make it more affordable/just is a valid point, but let's assume that by reading the Cliff's Notes (press release) of this case we don't know enough to decide guilt. Edit: Courts should be affordable and just for all. I believe paying more shouldn't get you special treatment and not being able to pay shouldn't get you harsher judgements. The difficulty is in finding that balance. Edit 2: Well shit I was wrong, I missed the part where they agreed to the charges? Not sure how that works, beyond my limited knowledge on the law, but.... it looks like they plead guilty.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    Reading the linked press release answers your question. > The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Seattle, charges all three Bohras with violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399. They've admitted guilt & culpability.
    - bargl 6y ago
      This is one of those situations where I read the article but not in its entirety and have to eat my words. I would have assumed an press release wouldn't use the word alleged unless this was an ongoing case.
      - filmgirlcw 6y ago
        I assume that’s because there is a parallel criminal charge against the husband by the US Attorney. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the intricacies around the language used in this kind of statement, but allegation or not, the defendants agreed to the judgment and that let them be clear of any future charges in this case by the SEC.
  - filmgirlcw 6y ago
    Or how about the fact that >” All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399.” It isn’t alleged. They pled out. There is a parallel charge against the husband by the US Attorney in the Western District of Washington, and the court can presume innocence there. But I’m not a juror or a judge so I don’t have to make that same assumption.
    - bargl 6y ago
      Yeah, saw that after writing the comment. This was a doh moment. The tone of the first half of the article and the second half don't reconcile for me. I thought based on the first part that it was still ongoing. Missed the conviction part.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
ahelwer 6y ago
Using material information from your white-collar job to do some inside trading isn't the go-to example for the "two justice systems" of the US. You'd have to be immensely privileged, almost certainly in the top 10% income/wealth bracket for the entire USA, to have access to & be able to effectively act on this information. To put it in other terms: this person wasn't a capitalist, but they were a member of the professional-managerial class. I'm not shedding any tears.
TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> Even if they successfully defend against these charges They’ve already admitted culpability: “All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington today filed criminal charges against Viky Bohra.”
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kortilla 6y ago
These are not the same laws so it’s dumb to compare them. If Musk was caught front-running the market with trades before earnings them you would have a point.
- woeirua 6y ago
  I understand that these are not equivalent violations. That said it's not dumb to say that the SEC sure seems to be very selective in which laws they actually enforce with teeth versus which ones they seem to just let slide. If any other CEO had done what Musk has done, they would have been fired by their board, and hopefully the SEC would have fined them, and prevented them from serving as an executive in a publicly traded company again. It's absurd.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    >If any other CEO had done what Musk has done, they would have been fired by their board, and hopefully the SEC would have fined them, and prevented them from serving as an executive in a publicly traded company again. It's absurd. Do you have any evidence to back up you assertion that the SEC would have come down on others harder?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Being fired by your board has absolutely zero relationship to the SEC and is entirely dictated by the nature of power between the board and the CEO. If the CEO owns a controlling interest (or CEO+family), the board will have no teeth and will never fire him/her. Zuck won’t be fired and Bezos won’t be fired for the same reason.
i1856511 6y ago
Who are you, just the regular, salt of the earth type rich?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
acchow 6y ago
But Mr. Musk wasn’t trading on the price swings that his tweets created.
- pixl97 6y ago
  Instead he was forced to buy stock, that later shot up in price making him millions.
  - reitzensteinm 6y ago
    He wasn't forced to buy stock. It was a PR move so that he was injecting cash equivalent to Tesla's portion of the fine. However, he got stock in return, diluting the rest of the shareholders, so it was quite bizarre. Foregoing reimbursement for private jet travel for a few years would have made actual sense, if his intent was to not punish Tesla for his actions.
- t0mmyb0y 6y ago
  How was he not trading? His company always trades the stock.

filmgirlcw 6y ago

This is absolutely true but let’s not pretend this family didn’t violate the law here either. Like, there should be a middle ground between “if you’re rich enough, you get away with anything” and “it’s acceptable for a person in finance to share insider information with family members so they can profit.”

bargl 6y ago
>let’s not pretend this family didn’t violate the law here either. No actually, let's do pretend this family didn't violate the law here. Let's assume that allegedly means just that. We have this crazy double standard in the US, we want to assume the police are incompetent, but then when they accuse someone we assume they are guilty. How about we assume this is a competent accusation that may or may not be factual, and leave it to the courts to decide. Whether or not we believe the court system needs reform to make it more affordable/just is a valid point, but let's assume that by reading the Cliff's Notes (press release) of this case we don't know enough to decide guilt. Edit: Courts should be affordable and just for all. I believe paying more shouldn't get you special treatment and not being able to pay shouldn't get you harsher judgements. The difficulty is in finding that balance. Edit 2: Well shit I was wrong, I missed the part where they agreed to the charges? Not sure how that works, beyond my limited knowledge on the law, but.... it looks like they plead guilty.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  Reading the linked press release answers your question. > The SEC's complaint, filed in federal court in Seattle, charges all three Bohras with violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399. They've admitted guilt & culpability.
  - bargl 6y ago
    This is one of those situations where I read the article but not in its entirety and have to eat my words. I would have assumed an press release wouldn't use the word alleged unless this was an ongoing case.
    - filmgirlcw 6y ago
      I assume that’s because there is a parallel criminal charge against the husband by the US Attorney. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the intricacies around the language used in this kind of statement, but allegation or not, the defendants agreed to the judgment and that let them be clear of any future charges in this case by the SEC.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  Or how about the fact that >” All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399.” It isn’t alleged. They pled out. There is a parallel charge against the husband by the US Attorney in the Western District of Washington, and the court can presume innocence there. But I’m not a juror or a judge so I don’t have to make that same assumption.
  - bargl 6y ago
    Yeah, saw that after writing the comment. This was a doh moment. The tone of the first half of the article and the second half don't reconcile for me. I thought based on the first part that it was still ongoing. Missed the conviction part.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ahelwer 6y ago

Using material information from your white-collar job to do some inside trading isn't the go-to example for the "two justice systems" of the US. You'd have to be immensely privileged, almost certainly in the top 10% income/wealth bracket for the entire USA, to have access to & be able to effectively act on this information. To put it in other terms: this person wasn't a capitalist, but they were a member of the professional-managerial class. I'm not shedding any tears.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago

> Even if they successfully defend against these charges They’ve already admitted culpability: “All three Bohras have consented to the entry of final judgments permanently enjoining them from further violations of the charged provisions, and ordering them to pay total disgorgement of $1,428,094, total prejudgment interest of $118,406, and total penalties of $1,106,399. In a parallel action, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Washington today filed criminal charges against Viky Bohra.”

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kortilla 6y ago

These are not the same laws so it’s dumb to compare them. If Musk was caught front-running the market with trades before earnings them you would have a point.

woeirua 6y ago
I understand that these are not equivalent violations. That said it's not dumb to say that the SEC sure seems to be very selective in which laws they actually enforce with teeth versus which ones they seem to just let slide. If any other CEO had done what Musk has done, they would have been fired by their board, and hopefully the SEC would have fined them, and prevented them from serving as an executive in a publicly traded company again. It's absurd.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  >If any other CEO had done what Musk has done, they would have been fired by their board, and hopefully the SEC would have fined them, and prevented them from serving as an executive in a publicly traded company again. It's absurd. Do you have any evidence to back up you assertion that the SEC would have come down on others harder?
- kortilla 6y ago
  Being fired by your board has absolutely zero relationship to the SEC and is entirely dictated by the nature of power between the board and the CEO. If the CEO owns a controlling interest (or CEO+family), the board will have no teeth and will never fire him/her. Zuck won’t be fired and Bezos won’t be fired for the same reason.

i1856511 6y ago

Who are you, just the regular, salt of the earth type rich?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

acchow 6y ago

But Mr. Musk wasn’t trading on the price swings that his tweets created.

pixl97 6y ago
Instead he was forced to buy stock, that later shot up in price making him millions.
- reitzensteinm 6y ago
  He wasn't forced to buy stock. It was a PR move so that he was injecting cash equivalent to Tesla's portion of the fine. However, he got stock in return, diluting the rest of the shareholders, so it was quite bizarre. Foregoing reimbursement for private jet travel for a few years would have made actual sense, if his intent was to not punish Tesla for his actions.
t0mmyb0y 6y ago
How was he not trading? His company always trades the stock.