4 ms·

They were probably not complicit in the fraud. They just looked the other way, because a scam in that scale was unthinkable for them. As far as I know there are

by andix 4y ago

They were probably not complicit in the fraud. They just looked the other way, because a scam in that scale was unthinkable for them. As far as I know there are no cases of bad faith or corruption known. They „just“ didn’t do their job carefully enough.

whatshisface 4y ago
If that's the public attitude it's going to keep happening.
- andix 4y ago
  Sure, but technically you need to know about the fraud, or at least that you are doing something wrong, to be complicit in it. I think they genuinely though they were doing the right thing.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >I think they genuinely though they were doing the right thing Your job as a government regulator/agency isn't "to believe", it's to be impartial, do your due diligence and apply the law indiscriminately. Selectively looking the other way is blatant corruption. Ask any accountant at any company. They double check everything. If you miss something and fuck up you can't just tell your boss "well, I didn't check it because I believed there couldn't be anything wrong here". It doesn't matter what you believe, your job is to check.
    - andix 4y ago
      To commit fraud you need an intent. That’s how fraud is defined. You can’t commit fraud if you don’t intend to. Same goes for being complicit in a crime. Just by doing some things in good faith, you can’t be complicit. For example: if you help somebody carrying stolen goods, you are not a complicit, if you don’t know (and don’t have to suspect) that it’s stolen. See Wikipedia: In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
    - throwawaysleep 4y ago
      > If you miss something and fuck up you can't just tell your boss "well, I didn't check it because I believed there couldn't be anything wrong here". It doesn't matter what you believe, your job is to check. Fraud and conspiracy require intent. So yes, if you are accused of fraud, “I didn’t check as I didn’t suspect anything was wrong” is a defence.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    If you genuinely think you are doing the right thing then don't do insane things like suing the whistle blowers.
Mizza 4y ago
Selectively prohibiting certain types of bets in an allegedly "free market" system is complicity regardless of knowledge. Rules for thee but not for me!
usrusr 4y ago
Just like parent wrote: complicit for wanting to take credit, not (necessarily) complicit for participation in a material sense. They wanted to believe, wanted to believe very hard.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>They „just“ didn’t do their job carefully enough. How is selectively not doing your job carefully enough a.k.a. looking the other way, different than corruption? That's literally corruption. You bribe people or pull strings for authorities to look the other way when you comit your illegal activities.

by andix 4y ago

whatshisface 4y ago

If that's the public attitude it's going to keep happening.

andix 4y ago
Sure, but technically you need to know about the fraud, or at least that you are doing something wrong, to be complicit in it. I think they genuinely though they were doing the right thing.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >I think they genuinely though they were doing the right thing Your job as a government regulator/agency isn't "to believe", it's to be impartial, do your due diligence and apply the law indiscriminately. Selectively looking the other way is blatant corruption. Ask any accountant at any company. They double check everything. If you miss something and fuck up you can't just tell your boss "well, I didn't check it because I believed there couldn't be anything wrong here". It doesn't matter what you believe, your job is to check.
  - andix 4y ago
    To commit fraud you need an intent. That’s how fraud is defined. You can’t commit fraud if you don’t intend to. Same goes for being complicit in a crime. Just by doing some things in good faith, you can’t be complicit. For example: if you help somebody carrying stolen goods, you are not a complicit, if you don’t know (and don’t have to suspect) that it’s stolen. See Wikipedia: In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
  - throwawaysleep 4y ago
    > If you miss something and fuck up you can't just tell your boss "well, I didn't check it because I believed there couldn't be anything wrong here". It doesn't matter what you believe, your job is to check. Fraud and conspiracy require intent. So yes, if you are accused of fraud, “I didn’t check as I didn’t suspect anything was wrong” is a defence.
- imtringued 4y ago
  If you genuinely think you are doing the right thing then don't do insane things like suing the whistle blowers.

Mizza 4y ago

Selectively prohibiting certain types of bets in an allegedly "free market" system is complicity regardless of knowledge. Rules for thee but not for me!

usrusr 4y ago

Just like parent wrote: complicit for wanting to take credit, not (necessarily) complicit for participation in a material sense. They wanted to believe, wanted to believe very hard.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

>They „just“ didn’t do their job carefully enough. How is selectively not doing your job carefully enough a.k.a. looking the other way, different than corruption? That's literally corruption. You bribe people or pull strings for authorities to look the other way when you comit your illegal activities.