5 ms·
>> Charges for which Holmes was convicted in January. These included three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Naive questio
by chopete3 3y ago
>> Charges for which Holmes was convicted in January. These included three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Naive question:
Why do they call this wire fraud?
Where is the wire in this fraud?
- taneq 3y agoProbably to telegraph the fact that it’s not using actual physical paper documents?
- chopete3 3y agoThere is an appropriate name like Investment Fraud. Just wondering why don't use it and lump everything into under wire fraud which makes it seem a petty crime.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- taneq 3y agoBecause names are sticky and you don’t need generalised category names if there’s only one thing in the category. I’d imagine wire fraud was named when telegraph wires were the only long distance instant communication.
- SkyMarshal 3y agoI am not a lawyer but I believe if the fraud involves any kind of electronic communications, like sending a term sheet to an investor via email, then it can be charged as wire fraud.
- djur 3y agoAs opposed to mail fraud -- basically any kind of fraud committed via electronic communication. At the time they would have been thinking of telegrams and phones, but the statute covers fraudulent materials "transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication", so that covers the Internet as well.
- fastball 3y agoIf you commit all your fraud via Starlink, could you make the argument that you didn't do it over wire?
- alexdunmow 3y agoThere's definitely a wire somewhere in the mix. Probably more than one!
- _gv1a 3y agoIt includes "radio".
- peterfirefly 3y agoAh, but what about the lasers?
- Ekaros 3y agoHigh frequency radio signals?
- pulse7 3y agoThat is certainly not possible, because there is a wire between Starlink router and Starlink antenna! :)
- fardo 3y agoYou can try almost anything in a courtroom, whether something’s likely to work is wholly another matter. When in doubt, legal processes tend to try to defer to precedent and prior case law. My guess is they would see a parallel between other also-not-really-telegraph-wire technologies on which others were convicted of wire fraud, and a Starlink connection. This means it probably wouldn’t legally be treated as appreciably different from any other current physical or wireless connection.
- no_time 3y agoThe court will argue that even your so-called wireless device has wires inside it.