4 ms·

He doesn't have to claim anything because he's presumed innocent. To nail him for wire fraud you need to prove: >(1) that the defendant voluntarily and intent

• lazide 4y ago
  You’re making claims I never did. Wire fraud != fraud, theft, or embezzlement. It’s a specific sub-type of fraud, and your link is pointing to a specific list of elements within a certain jurisdiction. Even then, that vox conversation cited above combined with what we already know is likely to be enough to prove at least embezzlement. Here is a link to some elements of the crime for that if you’re interested. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement Based on what we’ve seen so far, unless he somehow can convince a Judge or Jury that he didn’t know what was happening, it would be very implausible someone couldn’t get a sizable conviction somewhere on one or more of those charges. But we won’t know for sure until the situation has been analyzed. But he sure isn’t helping himself. Which is why I said what I said. He could of course have no defense and sit there mute for the entire trial, but I can’t imagine a Jury would be all that convinced by it, if the prosecution provided even the most basic set of evidence that seems to be lying around all over the place.