3 ms·
>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 al
by 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 agoReading 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 agoThis 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 agoI 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 agoOr 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 agoYeah, 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]