5 ms·
> That makes it de facto un-backed. It makes them un-backed by US Dollars in a bank account. It does not make them un-backed by securities denominated in US d
by jpmattia 5y ago
> That makes it de facto un-backed.
It makes them un-backed by US Dollars in a bank account.
It does not make them un-backed by securities denominated in US dollars, which was my point. It's also likely why she never pursued a fraud case.
- arcticbull 5y agoThat was a settlement for fraud under the Martin act. Fraud was the charge settled.
- jpmattia 5y agoFine, a criminal fraud case. Nobody went to jail.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y agodo you have any reasonable justification to move the goalposts like that?
- jpmattia 5y agoThe standard of evidence is very different between civil cases (preponderance of the evidence) and criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- arcticbull 5y agoIs the distinction meaningful in the course of reaching a settlement? Both parties agree on the facts at hand. I suppose you could make that case were the judge to make the determination on the basis of evidence, but the Tether folks signed the agreement of their own volition with the NYAG. At that point the evidence shouldn't be in question - and hence the standard isn't in question - simply their admission, no? Ok, not an admission, maybe an acquiescence. I would say the evidence in a settlement or plea deal would be of equivalent quality whether a criminal or civil trial. Further, I'd suspect the majority of folks who accept plea deals in criminal matters don't end up in prison either.
- mylons 5y agoLOL