3 ms·

To protect the wealthy. Pay a small fine that represents a tiny portion of your ill-gotten gains and move on without any repercussions.

by adoxyz 4y ago

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.

To protect the wealthy. Pay a small fine that represents a tiny portion of your ill-gotten gains and move on without any repercussions.

by 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.