3 ms·
It totally is his fault if those people were directed by him to pretend to be employees of the company – which he seems to admit. "I contracted some people spe
by foldr 3y ago
It totally is his fault if those people were directed by him to pretend to be employees of the company – which he seems to admit.
"I contracted some people specifically to pretend to be employees so that someone else would be deceived into thinking they were employees. But somehow it's still not my fault that this person was deceived."
Seems like a weak defense.
- CamperBob2 3y agoWell, they were employees, after all. Temporary ones. Very temporary ones.
- foldr 3y agoYeah, this kind of pedantry isn't going to work in a legal setting. Obviously the intent was to deceive the person into thinking that the company had a large number of regular employees.
- CamperBob2 3y agoI still don't see where the bright line of the law was crossed here. Is it really so surprising when people who are willing to do things like this get ahead of people who aren't? Are you really so certain that we'd be better off otherwise?
- foldr 3y agoIs it surprising that people sometimes lie and cheat? No, of course not. Is it surprising that people who lie and cheat sometimes obtain an advantage by doing so? Again, no. But yes, I do think we would be better off without people lying and cheating. IANAL and I do not claim that the law was necessarily broken in this instance, but the intent was clearly to deceive a business partner in order to obtain a financial advantage. I mean just look at SA's own words here: > So we hired a bunch of our college friends to 'work' for us for the day so we could look larger than we actually were The deceptive intent is explicit in his own description of events. It's honestly quite silly that you are looking for some semantic get-out clause here when SA's own statement is so explicit.