13 ms·

Whoa celebrity charges too. You just knew Jake Paul had his hand in so much bad crypto he was gonna get nailed eventually. I suppose Coffeezilla will struggle t

Whoa celebrity charges too. You just knew Jake Paul had his hand in so much bad crypto he was gonna get nailed eventually. I suppose Coffeezilla will struggle to suppress the glee. Edit: > With the exception of Cortez Way and Mahone, the celebrities charged today agreed to pay a total of more than $400,000 in disgorgement, interest, and penalties to settle the charges, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings Meh ok pfft

yunohn 4y ago
> without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings I’ve never understood why this loophole of “non admission of guilt” exists in our legal systems.
- adoxyz 4y ago
  To protect the wealthy. Pay a small fine that represents a tiny portion of your ill-gotten gains and move on without any repercussions.
  - Alupis 4y ago
    > To protect the wealthy. Hardly. The SEC cannot say you are guilty without proving it within the bounds of the legal system. This "non admission of guilt" is a way to sidestep a lengthy, costly legal process and get a result for the impacted parties sooner rather than much much later.
    - joecool1029 4y ago
      Saves time and money for all involved parties. It's literally like a parking ticket in this sector. Years back I had clients who were penny stock promoters and every one of their sites had to have a disclaimer which if you clicked and read listed how much and from who they were paid for each promotion. That's all it would have taken for them to avoid this fine even as grimy as the industry is.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The SEC cannot say you are guilty Pretty much ends there. The SEC can say you are civilly liable, and they can assess fines in some situations and initiate civil litigation in others based on that. But if they think you are guilty, that’s an issue they hand off to the Justice Department.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        We can split hairs all day regarding exactly who brings charges or whatever - but it doesn't matter. In basic terms: If the SEC says you are liable or guilty in any way for anything, you can contest it via the legal system. That's what the legal system is for... Again, this "non admission of guilt" sidesteps everything and cuts straight to the end result. In this specific case, it literally means the SEC either felt their case wasn't strong enough to guarantee an outcome, or litigating the case would become exceedingly costly and unproductive - again without a guarantee of an outcome. "Non admission of guilt" payments guarantee a speedy outcome. That is the entire point.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Again, this “non admission of guilt” sidesteps everything and cuts straight to the end result. It’s a settlement agreement, and, yes, that’s the whole point – they resolve a situation subject to civil litigation without litigation, but leaving the settling party no worse off than if they had fought and had the agreement contents instead imposed as a remedy. Requiring admissions as part of a settlement would not do that, settling would then in many cases be worse than losing.
        Alupis 4y ago
        We're saying the same thing, even if you write it more elegantly than I.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        Yeah, sorry I kind of snapshotted the last one and thought you were taking issue with the short-circuiting rather than merely describing it.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Is SEC enforcement even revenue positive/profitable? The "result for the impacted parties" is a pretext, especially if we intentionally and carefully preserve the ability to continue to reoffend in the exact same way.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- el_nahual 4y ago
  Because otherwise you force the innocent to go through a lengthy (and expensive) investigation that is not necessary for the guilty (who would be ok with paying a fine)! "I didn't do it, but I'd rather pay the fine than go to court" is a perfectly reasonable outcome.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    > court" is a perfectly reasonable outcome its miscarriage of justice
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > its miscarriage of justice So every civil suit filed should be forced to go through trial even if the parties arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution that both sides prefer to trial?
- notahacker 4y ago
  Presumably for the same reason it's more efficient to let people agree to pay parking fines up front rather than go to the extra time and expense of court for the sake of seeing whether they'll agree to say the word "guilty" or not. The SEC has higher priorities than sullying the name of Lindsay Lohan and Soulja Boy, and fining them substantially more than they got paid is ample deterrent.
  - vasco 4y ago
    > substantially more I was curious, so I checked Jake Paul: > Respondent shall, within 20 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement of $25,019, prejudgment interest of $1,811, and a civil money penalty in the amount of $75,057 to the Securities and Exchange Commission Jake Paul was paid $25k for a tweet and was ordered to pay back a bit over $100k. Only other restriction is he can't be paid for anything related to crypto in the next 3 years. Paying back the original money + 3x as fine seems reasonable I guess.
    - tobyjsullivan 4y ago
      It’s all relative, perhaps. It might be different if anybody believed these celebrities were actively trying to defraud and harm people. The reality is more likely that these people are effectively human billboards. People pay them to read a script, and they read it. Each week a different product, different script, same deal. So they got suckered into reading an illegal script. They get penalized (rightly) but it doesn’t necessarily need to be extreme. And now the SEC gets to show off their win using the same billboards.
      - zeusk 4y ago
        Yeah, but these people don't get to billboard investments and securities without acknowledging so. > Hey, I'm Jake Paul and you should buy crypto X because it's great and I have it vs > Hey, I'm Jake Paul and you should buy crypto X because it's great and I was paid for this advertisement.
        4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  It exists in the civil (but not criminal) justice system so that civil disputes can be resolved without the parties making admissions that could be used against them in separate litigation (including, especially, criminal process, with its higher standard of proof and potentially more severe personal consequences.) Given the overlap between torts and crimes, it would be much longer and more painful to resolve tort cases if the settling part might have to admit an act that was also a crime.
  - schoen 4y ago
    In some jurisdictions, it also exists, partly for a similar reason, in the criminal justice system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
  - microtherion 4y ago
    I think it's exactly the other way around (SEC proceedings are criminal, not civil): You can plead no contest to criminal charges so your admission can not be used against you in civil proceedings. In the concrete case, they settle with the SEC, but if anybody wants to sue them claiming their shilling induced them to make bad crypto investments, the settlement doesn't serve as an admission of guilt to use as evidence in that follow up lawsuit.
    - phonon 4y ago
      SEC has only civil enforcement authority. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement/how-investigations-work https://www.sec.gov/enforcement/how-investigations-work
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      criminal cases in securities fraud matters come from referrals and parallel charges by the Department of Justice often times they are announced but under separate headlines on separate websites, you have to check. Other times there is not a criminal case at all.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
- CaptainNegative 4y ago
  It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants more flexibility to civil procedure without overstepping fifth amendment bounds.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > This grants more flexibility Do we need that flexibility? The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we're enforcing legislation for revenue's sake. I wouldn't complain about that just because it seems venal, I really find it silly because the amount of revenue is minuscule irt the budget.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      What's the value of marking someone as guilty? The fine is a punishment.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Do we need that flexibility? Yes. > The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we’re enforcing legislation for revenue’s sake. Civil charges are about liability, not guilt, and have a different standard of proof than criminal guilt. However, in a criminal trial, and admission of facts necessary for civil liability is admissible evidence. No one benefits from a system in which it is impossible for a party to accept civil liability without admitting to facts that could be used against them in other, including criminal, litigation when the civil verdict itself could not be. And, while in this case all of the consequences may have been monetary, in civil litigation especially involving the government, there are often other consequences (such as legally binding commitments to heightened monitoring and behavioral controls) that are attained in settlements (often, in the form of “consent decrees”) of civil litigation. Making those more expensive for all sides because the defense was incentivized to go through a kabuki-dance trial even if they fully expect to lose on the civil burden of proof just to avoid making an admission to settle does not benefit anyone. Except lawyers, lawyers would love it.
- themitigating 4y ago
  "Ok so you can either go to trial OR just be guilty now and get punished, what a deal right?"
- paulpauper 4y ago
  I hate it too. It allows people to engage in borderline fraud knowing that if they get caught they pay a fine and keep some of the ill-gotten gains anyway. Like a get out of jail free card. Worst comes to worse, you settle and admit no wrongdoing and pay fine. Best case scenario, you avoid the dragnet and nothing happen, so you keep scamming. Either way, you avoid jail.
  - astrange 4y ago
    The people here have not "kept some of the ill-gotten gains", their fines are 4x what they were originally paid.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      but is thw chance of getting caught >25%? I doubt it
- harry8 4y ago
  The one that really gets me is where vicious bastards pay off witnesses so they cannot legally testify against them. Is that situation being reported wrong? E.g. Rose McGowan unable to testify against Weinstein because he setlled with her for $100k. Surely in a criminal trial you can be called, take the oath and tell the truth? I don't want to follow anything in hollywood if I can avoid it so I don't care to know the details of weinstein and mcgowan at all. Just it was being reported like that and my jaw dropped. You can pay off witnesses so they can't testify now? Wow.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Rose McGowan unable to testify against Weinstein because he setlled with her for $100k McGowan was not able to testify because the particular offense against her was not charged and the judge didn’t allow testimony about prior acts before a certain date, not because of the settlement.
    - harry8 4y ago
      So that's not a thing? You can't accept a settlement that prevents you from giving evidence at a criminal trial?
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        A settlement where you can't testify at a trial is just witness tampering. It's not legal.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        If you could, members of criminal organizations would engage in sham civil suits against each other which they would then “settle” with no-testimony agreements.

yunohn 4y ago

> without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings I’ve never understood why this loophole of “non admission of guilt” exists in our legal systems.

adoxyz 4y ago
To protect the wealthy. Pay a small fine that represents a tiny portion of your ill-gotten gains and move on without any repercussions.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > To protect the wealthy. Hardly. The SEC cannot say you are guilty without proving it within the bounds of the legal system. This "non admission of guilt" is a way to sidestep a lengthy, costly legal process and get a result for the impacted parties sooner rather than much much later.
  - joecool1029 4y ago
    Saves time and money for all involved parties. It's literally like a parking ticket in this sector. Years back I had clients who were penny stock promoters and every one of their sites had to have a disclaimer which if you clicked and read listed how much and from who they were paid for each promotion. That's all it would have taken for them to avoid this fine even as grimy as the industry is.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The SEC cannot say you are guilty Pretty much ends there. The SEC can say you are civilly liable, and they can assess fines in some situations and initiate civil litigation in others based on that. But if they think you are guilty, that’s an issue they hand off to the Justice Department.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      We can split hairs all day regarding exactly who brings charges or whatever - but it doesn't matter. In basic terms: If the SEC says you are liable or guilty in any way for anything, you can contest it via the legal system. That's what the legal system is for... Again, this "non admission of guilt" sidesteps everything and cuts straight to the end result. In this specific case, it literally means the SEC either felt their case wasn't strong enough to guarantee an outcome, or litigating the case would become exceedingly costly and unproductive - again without a guarantee of an outcome. "Non admission of guilt" payments guarantee a speedy outcome. That is the entire point.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Again, this “non admission of guilt” sidesteps everything and cuts straight to the end result. It’s a settlement agreement, and, yes, that’s the whole point – they resolve a situation subject to civil litigation without litigation, but leaving the settling party no worse off than if they had fought and had the agreement contents instead imposed as a remedy. Requiring admissions as part of a settlement would not do that, settling would then in many cases be worse than losing.
        Alupis 4y ago
        We're saying the same thing, even if you write it more elegantly than I.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        Yeah, sorry I kind of snapshotted the last one and thought you were taking issue with the short-circuiting rather than merely describing it.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Is SEC enforcement even revenue positive/profitable? The "result for the impacted parties" is a pretext, especially if we intentionally and carefully preserve the ability to continue to reoffend in the exact same way.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
el_nahual 4y ago
Because otherwise you force the innocent to go through a lengthy (and expensive) investigation that is not necessary for the guilty (who would be ok with paying a fine)! "I didn't do it, but I'd rather pay the fine than go to court" is a perfectly reasonable outcome.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > court" is a perfectly reasonable outcome its miscarriage of justice
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > its miscarriage of justice So every civil suit filed should be forced to go through trial even if the parties arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution that both sides prefer to trial?
notahacker 4y ago
Presumably for the same reason it's more efficient to let people agree to pay parking fines up front rather than go to the extra time and expense of court for the sake of seeing whether they'll agree to say the word "guilty" or not. The SEC has higher priorities than sullying the name of Lindsay Lohan and Soulja Boy, and fining them substantially more than they got paid is ample deterrent.
- vasco 4y ago
  > substantially more I was curious, so I checked Jake Paul: > Respondent shall, within 20 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement of $25,019, prejudgment interest of $1,811, and a civil money penalty in the amount of $75,057 to the Securities and Exchange Commission Jake Paul was paid $25k for a tweet and was ordered to pay back a bit over $100k. Only other restriction is he can't be paid for anything related to crypto in the next 3 years. Paying back the original money + 3x as fine seems reasonable I guess.
  - tobyjsullivan 4y ago
    It’s all relative, perhaps. It might be different if anybody believed these celebrities were actively trying to defraud and harm people. The reality is more likely that these people are effectively human billboards. People pay them to read a script, and they read it. Each week a different product, different script, same deal. So they got suckered into reading an illegal script. They get penalized (rightly) but it doesn’t necessarily need to be extreme. And now the SEC gets to show off their win using the same billboards.
    - zeusk 4y ago
      Yeah, but these people don't get to billboard investments and securities without acknowledging so. > Hey, I'm Jake Paul and you should buy crypto X because it's great and I have it vs > Hey, I'm Jake Paul and you should buy crypto X because it's great and I was paid for this advertisement.
      - 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
It exists in the civil (but not criminal) justice system so that civil disputes can be resolved without the parties making admissions that could be used against them in separate litigation (including, especially, criminal process, with its higher standard of proof and potentially more severe personal consequences.) Given the overlap between torts and crimes, it would be much longer and more painful to resolve tort cases if the settling part might have to admit an act that was also a crime.
- schoen 4y ago
  In some jurisdictions, it also exists, partly for a similar reason, in the criminal justice system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere
- microtherion 4y ago
  I think it's exactly the other way around (SEC proceedings are criminal, not civil): You can plead no contest to criminal charges so your admission can not be used against you in civil proceedings. In the concrete case, they settle with the SEC, but if anybody wants to sue them claiming their shilling induced them to make bad crypto investments, the settlement doesn't serve as an admission of guilt to use as evidence in that follow up lawsuit.
  - phonon 4y ago
    SEC has only civil enforcement authority. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement/how-investigations-work https://www.sec.gov/enforcement/how-investigations-work
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    criminal cases in securities fraud matters come from referrals and parallel charges by the Department of Justice often times they are announced but under separate headlines on separate websites, you have to check. Other times there is not a criminal case at all.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
CaptainNegative 4y ago
It allows one to settle a civil manner without self-incriminating if the same act is also criminal. This grants more flexibility to civil procedure without overstepping fifth amendment bounds.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > This grants more flexibility Do we need that flexibility? The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we're enforcing legislation for revenue's sake. I wouldn't complain about that just because it seems venal, I really find it silly because the amount of revenue is minuscule irt the budget.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    What's the value of marking someone as guilty? The fine is a punishment.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Do we need that flexibility? Yes. > The flexibility to extract a settlement from guilty people without an acknowledgement of guilt seems to be a worthless prize unless we’re enforcing legislation for revenue’s sake. Civil charges are about liability, not guilt, and have a different standard of proof than criminal guilt. However, in a criminal trial, and admission of facts necessary for civil liability is admissible evidence. No one benefits from a system in which it is impossible for a party to accept civil liability without admitting to facts that could be used against them in other, including criminal, litigation when the civil verdict itself could not be. And, while in this case all of the consequences may have been monetary, in civil litigation especially involving the government, there are often other consequences (such as legally binding commitments to heightened monitoring and behavioral controls) that are attained in settlements (often, in the form of “consent decrees”) of civil litigation. Making those more expensive for all sides because the defense was incentivized to go through a kabuki-dance trial even if they fully expect to lose on the civil burden of proof just to avoid making an admission to settle does not benefit anyone. Except lawyers, lawyers would love it.
themitigating 4y ago
"Ok so you can either go to trial OR just be guilty now and get punished, what a deal right?"
paulpauper 4y ago
I hate it too. It allows people to engage in borderline fraud knowing that if they get caught they pay a fine and keep some of the ill-gotten gains anyway. Like a get out of jail free card. Worst comes to worse, you settle and admit no wrongdoing and pay fine. Best case scenario, you avoid the dragnet and nothing happen, so you keep scamming. Either way, you avoid jail.
- astrange 4y ago
  The people here have not "kept some of the ill-gotten gains", their fines are 4x what they were originally paid.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    but is thw chance of getting caught >25%? I doubt it
harry8 4y ago
The one that really gets me is where vicious bastards pay off witnesses so they cannot legally testify against them. Is that situation being reported wrong? E.g. Rose McGowan unable to testify against Weinstein because he setlled with her for $100k. Surely in a criminal trial you can be called, take the oath and tell the truth? I don't want to follow anything in hollywood if I can avoid it so I don't care to know the details of weinstein and mcgowan at all. Just it was being reported like that and my jaw dropped. You can pay off witnesses so they can't testify now? Wow.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Rose McGowan unable to testify against Weinstein because he setlled with her for $100k McGowan was not able to testify because the particular offense against her was not charged and the judge didn’t allow testimony about prior acts before a certain date, not because of the settlement.
  - harry8 4y ago
    So that's not a thing? You can't accept a settlement that prevents you from giving evidence at a criminal trial?
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      A settlement where you can't testify at a trial is just witness tampering. It's not legal.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      If you could, members of criminal organizations would engage in sham civil suits against each other which they would then “settle” with no-testimony agreements.