499
Elon Musk must face fraud lawsuit for disclosing Twitter stake late
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
499 points (97.3% liked)
News
23287 readers
2290 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So we're pretty much already at the point of admitting that there was a failure of disclosure. There must be some pretty strong evidence against him.
Well shit, thats all they had to say! Little guy is just so busy doing his silly little jobs that he’s just immune from the law 🥺
Can’t wait for the judges to be paid off for this one
Your honor, I'm just too busy to be held accountable for my actions or inaction.
I'd pull up his twitter history from the days in question and I bet we can calculate hours of time he found to be able to tweet
That quote reads like he is the only one at the company. I could see using that argument for my business, as there literally is only me except one day a week my wife watches the shop for 3 hours.
Does he not have any accountants?
Probably fired em. When you have more money than nearly the rest of the world combined, you don't need to keep track of things like "finances" and "books".
He bought the shares for his private account, not on behalf of his companies. There was no reason for accountants at his companies to get involved, they probably don't even have access to his private account.
Elon surely has a personal accountant that handles private transactions. He is not logging into these websites on his own to make large purchases. Someone else knew about it, and likely that there should be a disclosure for a large purchase like that.
He would have his own accountants for his private accounts…
Failure to disclose is objective fact. The circumstances of which will either be aggravating or mitigating to whatever fine is tossed his way.
I sincerely doubt someone like Musk, someone who's entire life revolves around the acquisition of wealth and the utilization of investment funds, can use "I was too busy and forgot to perform regulatory obligations!" defense.
This isn't really about a fine. Musk is being sued by other another company. They claim that Musk saved $200m on his Twitter purchase by failing to disclose in time. In other words he bought some shares that would have cost him more if he had disclosed.
Of course his savings was someone else's loss of potential profit, and they are suing Musk to get that profit back.
i mean it wouldn't be too hard to prove anyway. if he had prepared beforehand and bought the shares through shell companies it would have been harder to prove but if he just bought them outright it's just " did you have the share? did you disclose them?" and now his lawyers hate him (who am i kidding they already hated him)
I'm not familiar with the law, but it seems like they have to prove musk intended to defraud them to win, no? So "I forgot" might be enough for musk to escape this, if the other party can't come up with other evidence his intent was to defraud.
I don't know what I'm talking about so this could be completely wrong.
Yes, many laws require a proof of criminal intent, although the nuances of that can be tricky.
Classic example: a convicted felon named Bob is charged with possessing a firearm while a felon. You are the prosecutor. You must prove the following to establish intent:
Meanwhile, you don't need to prove these:
Because US law defines many things as "firearms" which zero people would agree count as firearms in common parlance, number 4 is a very common reason to go to jail. For example, spent shell casings count as firearms, legally, so you can go to prison for possessing a lamp incorporating a spent shell casing into the design for aesthetic purposes.
This isn't a criminal trial, so intent doesn't matter so much. The purpose of the trial will be to determine whether the plaintiffs lost money, and if so how much he owes them.
I get that Im not a lawyer, but how is that a real defense? Surely thats worse than admitting fault and trying for a deal, right?
If it gets to trial at all, at least it'll be a short one. Seems now the only issue being questioned is whether the wealthy really can just flat out ignore the law, or if they have to at least pretend to obey it.
This is a civil lawsuit. The only question is how much money he owes the plaintiffs.