Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1479782)	8/21/2024 3:52:19 PM
From: Qone0	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570880

LOL, you fell for the bait hook line and sinker. Criminal conviction In 1999, Japanese fraud investigators accused Armstrong of collecting money from Japanese investors, improperly commingling these funds with funds from other investors, and using the fresh money to cover losses he had incurred while trading. [13] United States prosecutors called it a three-billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. [14] Allegedly assisting Armstrong in his scheme was the Republic New York Corporation, which produced false account statements to reassure Armstrong's investors. In 2001, the bank agreed to pay US$606 million as restitution for its part in the scandal. [14] You know what a Ponzi scheme is right? It's where you tell investors you can create a profit using their money, but really can't. So you use other peoples money to create the illusion that you can. Until the whole thing finally collapse's. That is theft by fraud. He stole their money. Period.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1479782)	8/21/2024 4:01:39 PM
From: Qone0	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570880

He never "stole $700m". He was eventually convicted of hiding trading losses. This is not an excuse for abusing the Constitution Comrade Q. You really need to read the constitution sometime. The United States Constitution does not explicitly specify a time limit for holding someone in contempt of court. However, the courts have traditionally distinguished between civil and criminal contempt 1. Here’s what you need to know: Civil Contempt: This occurs when a person in a civil case refuses to obey a mandatory court order. It is considered incomplete in nature and can be purged by complying with the order. Civil contempt does not involve a sentence for a definite period of time. Criminal Contempt: In contrast, criminal contempt is characterized by completed contemptuous acts. Punishment is imposed to vindicate the court’s authority, and a person cannot purge themselves of such contempt afterward. In practice, the distinction between civil and criminal contempt remains influential. For instance, a court may sentence someone to imprisonment for contempt but include a “purge clause” that allows their unconditional release upon compliance (e.g., testifying before a grand jury). The court’s primary purpose in imposing the sentence determines whether it is civil or criminal contempt 1. Keep in mind that specific rules may vary by jurisdiction and case context. If you have a specific situation, consulting legal counsel is advisable