2 ms·
"The issue is over how he should be punished." Eh, no, that's not what the issue is about. The article states explicitly that no reason for the reversal was gi
by roel_v 15y ago
"The issue is over how he should be punished."
Eh, no, that's not what the issue is about. The article states explicitly that no reason for the reversal was given (yet), but it seems to be about the extent of 'interstate commerce'. I.e., a purely technical legal point, having nothing to do with the material matters in the case.
- timwiseman 15y agoBut they are related. If the conviction was upheld, he could be punished criminally with jail time. With the conviction overturned, Goldman can still go after him civilly for breach of contract which is relatively similar to a fine.
- roel_v 15y ago"Relatively similar"? No it's not. Criminal conviction or not, GS could still sue, albeit that the proof would be easier. Either way, I don't understand the relationship between your post and mine, or the whole point that is being made here.