3 ms·
>The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him They were overt, literal, indisputable financial crimes. Not sure
by defaultname 5y ago
>The "financial crimes" seem to have no victims since none of his investors actually sued him
They were overt, literal, indisputable financial crimes. Not sure why you decided to scare-quote that.
Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous.
>I guess in this Cancel Culture era
Give it a rest.
There is a truth that if you are a criminal you probably shouldn't draw attention to yourself. If you're a drug dealer, don't wear a bunch of jewellery and drive a unique car. If you're someone running a ponzi scheme, don't be a public troll, desperately seeking attention.
- kgantchev 5y ago> Making someone you defrauded whole again doesn't erase the crime. The notion that it would is ludicrous. He didn't just make them whole, he made them a profit. That's between the two parties that engaged in the contract, isn't it? They signed contracts that they're receiving shares of his other company and they're not going to sue him for the losses from his previous company. The end result is that they made a profit. Anyway, what a criminal... he loses his investors' money in one venture and then he makes them a profit in the next. That's the sort of crime I like to see our government spend their resources on, not the 700+ yearly murders in Chicago.
- defaultname 5y agoAh, some whataboutism too. Delightful. I suppose the financial regulators who caught him committing gross violations of the law should really be doing the street beat in Chicago. This method of argument is embarrassing and ridiculous. It has no place on a venue like HN. Whatever mod flagged this comment (seconds after posting) needs to seriously reassess their life.