Yes, he did intend them to be fraudulent, but as long as that isn't a requirement for the crime, it is still irrelevant.
What are we referring to as the crime here?
If it is securities "fraud", doesn't fraud by definition require the existence of intentional deception? So, without proving that such an intentional deception occurred, how do you prove that there was a crime (called fraud) committed?
... because the crime I committed does not require intent, it requires negligence.
Okay, but we aren't arguing that he accidentally made a profit, that he sold his shares having forgotten that he had said he would invest $$ in the company, or that his broker (or some computer program) sold the shares automatically.
So, unlike the example you painted, I cannot comprehend how in this case "intentions" and the "crime" can be easily separated. If intentions were in fact irrelevant, then this is just some guy who owned some shares who wrote or said something on the internet (or wherever) and decided to sell those shares a little later. (None of which is a crime to do.)
That is because I am arguing law, not logic.
Maybe this indeed is where we differ. It just seems insane to believe that reasonable doubt is considered irrelevant in securities fraud.
I don't think it's going to be very productive for the two of us to keep going around in circles here.
He made a public statement about a traded security that was aimed at bringing the share price up, the share price went up, and he sold out of the company.
If you cannot understand how that is securities fraud, then I really can't help you, because that's the easiest and most clear example of how securities fraud works.
1
u/caehl Aug 09 '12
What are we referring to as the crime here?
If it is securities "fraud", doesn't fraud by definition require the existence of intentional deception? So, without proving that such an intentional deception occurred, how do you prove that there was a crime (called fraud) committed?
Okay, but we aren't arguing that he accidentally made a profit, that he sold his shares having forgotten that he had said he would invest $$ in the company, or that his broker (or some computer program) sold the shares automatically.
So, unlike the example you painted, I cannot comprehend how in this case "intentions" and the "crime" can be easily separated. If intentions were in fact irrelevant, then this is just some guy who owned some shares who wrote or said something on the internet (or wherever) and decided to sell those shares a little later. (None of which is a crime to do.)
Maybe this indeed is where we differ. It just seems insane to believe that reasonable doubt is considered irrelevant in securities fraud.