4 ms·
> Chevalier has agreed to a settlement order with agency. Under the agreement, he's prohibited from making misrepresentations about crowdfunding campaigns and f
by deckar01 11y ago
> Chevalier has agreed to a settlement order with agency. Under the agreement, he's prohibited from making misrepresentations about crowdfunding campaigns and failing to honor refund policies in the future. The order also contains a $111,793.71 judgment against Chevaliar, but it is suspended because of his inability to pay. "The full amount will become due immediately if he is found to have misrepresented his financial condition," an FTC press release said. The Post was not able to immediately reach Chevalier, who did not admit guilt as part of the agreement.
So, he only has to promise not to do it again as long as he actually spent all of the money? Surely there is something else they can do to recover these funds.
- reagency 11y ago1. The promise not to repeat: that looks silly on the surface, but is standard legalese so the govt can hand out a stronger penalty if he reoffends. 2. If the money is gone, it is gone. The (bad) loophole seems to be that there is no recovery lien against his future earnings.
- emodendroket 11y agoCan't squeeze blood out of a stone...
- brohee 11y agoHe's not a stone, how much do kidneys go for against? ;)
- s73v3r 11y agoSounds like he needs to get a job, then.
- emodendroket 11y agoYou can't seize assets someone doesn't have and it's hard to make them acquire assets just to have them seized against their will. I don't know what you're expecting them to do, short of going for criminal charges and locking the guy up.
- ohitsdom 11y agoAnd he didn't even have to admit guilt!
- s73v3r 11y ago"Under the agreement, he's prohibited from making misrepresentations about crowdfunding campaigns and failing to honor refund policies in the future." I may be naive here, but isn't this already illegal? Like, isn't this stuff that you should be doing already? I would think a more fitting punishment would be to ban him from having anything to do with a crowdfunding campaign, ever.
- dragonwriter 11y agoViolating the order in a previous case can be a separate offense with its own punishment, so a court order that prohibits conduct that is already prohibited by law does have a purpose. That said, "misrepresentations about crowdfunding campaings" and "failing to honor refund policies" might often be either fraud (in the former case) or breach of contract (in the latter case), but things might fall into either of the first two categories without necessarily meeting the legal standard of either of the last two.
- anigbrowl 11y agoOne hopes there's some sort of lien on his future income or so, though I suppose he could declare bankruptcy. This seems like straight-up fraud to me, I don't know why they can't just hand the details over to the DoJ. (Disclaimer: haven't read the FTCs documents, not especially familiar with existing legal standards, just my general impression).