5 ms·
The comment you first replied to started with ”from the emails…”. So it’s very odd to speculate on a theoretical defense without knowing the details, in particu
by soneca 3y ago
The comment you first replied to started with ”from the emails…”. So it’s very odd to speculate on a theoretical defense without knowing the details, in particularly, what the emails said.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swores 3y agoThe comment I replied to suggested the emails proved they got money from their son, not proved they knew anything illegal was going on. To quote the comment I replied to: "From the emails that were released in court, it's clear that if they did not enable his crimes, they certainly profited from them and encouraged the continuance of the enterprise" If they thought "the enterprise" was just a hugely successful startup, then why wouldn't they accept money from their newly rich son?
- CPLX 3y agoBut it didn’t happen that way. There are emails where the guy’s mom appears to be instigating brazen violations of various laws, among other things. There doesn’t really appear to be much question they were active participants in a massive criminal fraud conspiracy. That’s what the article is about. The only vagueness is if the DOJ feels like it makes sense to prosecute it.