4 ms·

If I read the article correctly, they were trying to coerce Mango into paying them and ignoring the hack. That sounds like an additional crime and not a reason

• wmf 4y ago
  That's a good point; you could definitely argue that the agreement was made under duress.
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > That’s a good point; you could definitely argue that the agreement was made under duress. If people involved in Mango governance were defending against a claim from Eisenberg, they wouldn’t need to, because illegality would be a stronger argument. If they were defending against criminal charges from the government for the illegal agreement, they wouldn’t be able to cite duress, because as a criminal defense, duress requires an immediate threat of death or serious bodily (not financial) harm. It’s the literal “gun to the head” defense.