> it would be much more reasonable for OP to note that they don't > have a clue if anybody would be breaking the law If someone who does not qualify as an Ac

> it would be much more reasonable for OP to note that they don't > have a clue if anybody would be breaking the law If someone who does not qualify as an Accredited Investor has invested into a security that is only allowed to be sold to people who qualify as Accredited Investors, then the law has clearly been broken by someone. You don't need to graduate from Yale to understand this. > Your teenaged kid takes your car without you knowing and kills somebody in > a car accident. Drunk. On your alcohol. Did they steal it? What's your > liability? Do you need to talk to a lawyer, or is it reasonable for OP to > give you his opinion? The OP's opinion would likely be like mine, or like any reasonable person's, which is that (1) an illegal thing has clearly happened, (2) your kid has clearly done at least one illegal thing, (3) you may also have done something illegal. What kind of person would look at the facts of that situation and think "hmm, I dunno, this law stuff is difficult, no way for me to know if I have any legal risk"?