• float@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    1 year ago

    If a penalty is “worth it”, it’s a business decision, not a penalty. Add a zero or two if you want it to work as intended.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Some countries make their penalties a percentage of income. Makes the sting equal for everyone.

      • ninboy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe makes the big guys sting some, but the same percentage for someone that is counting every penny for their food is still going to be more painful for them.

        • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          Make it a percentage of disposable income, calculated as income plus 4% of net worth minus average living expenses for your city.

          To avoid letting low-income people commit certain crimes without any penalty, maybe have a minimum fine but allow anyone who would be eligible to pay less than the minimum to make up the difference with community service (i.e., if the minimum fine is $200 and the calculated percentage of their disposable income would only be $100, they can pay $100 and then work 10 hours of community service).

        • flipht@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          True. And we can’t legislate our way out of this. Any legislation we proffer and make happen will be weaponized against the poor.

    • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If he can even get a 1% gain in net worth from market manipulation, it would be a worth it even with 2 more zeros. 1 billion dollars is barely anything for him. 20mil is like a $80 fine for millionaire.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    “A comprehensive overhaul of these agencies is sorely needed, along with a commission to take punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gains,” Musk said in a post on X.

    He just can’t stop being Trumply. “I’ll sue the judge and district attorney!”

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Elon Musk is under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission over his $44bn takeover of social media giant Twitter, it was revealed on Thursday.

    The investigation concerns whether Musk broke federal securities laws in 2022 when he bought stock in Twitter, which he later renamed X, as well as statements and SEC filings he made about the deal.

    Musk also refused to SEC proposals to conduct the deposition in Texas, where he legally resides, in October or November.

    After announcing plans to buy the company in late April, he tried to get out of the deal, alleging Twitter was not disclosing the full extent of bot activity on its platform.

    The SEC fined him $20m for misleading investors and forced him to step down as chairman of the company, a penalty he said in later tweets was “worth it”.

    “A comprehensive overhaul of these agencies is sorely needed, along with a commission to take punitive action against those individuals who have abused their regulatory power for personal and political gains,” Musk said in a post on X.


    The original article contains 510 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Blue bought it paying twice the worth and then made that worth 30% of what it was in about a year.

      Ladies and gentlemen, the “smartest man on the planet” at work here!

  • mishimaenjoyer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    169
    ·
    1 year ago

    he can’t win this, can’t he?

    “i want to buy this.”
    “NOOO, YOU CAN’T DO THAT!”
    “ok, i won’t buy it.”
    “NOOO, NOW YOU HAVE TO!”
    “ok, i bought it.”
    “WE WILL NOW INVESTIGATE YOU!”

    one does not have to like him to see the pattern behind this, just like the farce with investigating spacex for “discrimination” for not hiring migrants and foreigners even tho the law explicitly forbids the company to do so because of national security concerns.

    • HeavyDogFeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can see how it might look like that if you simply ignore literally all the details. But thats only something an idiot would do. You’re not an idiot, are you?

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think anyone told him he couldn’t buy it.

      The board of Twitter is who sued to force the sale, since musk had kicked himself in.

      That doesn’t mean his offer and subsequent behavior with the company isn’t market manipulation to be investigated, which is being done by the government.

      Both things can be true. He stupidly kicked himself into a deal he was forced to complete, and his behavior since has indicated that he’s just gaming the market since he had to complete the deal.

    • sadreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      The law does not forbid hiring of immigrants.

      The law forbids hiring immigrants into positions of national security concern.

      Policy must be administered to comply with the law.

      With that being said, I am not sure what the charges against spacex are.

      If they were rejecting immigrants for factory or aux support roles with no access to sensentive info, that would likely violate federal laws.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      49
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t like the guy either, but they literally had to force his hand to get him to buy Twitter. Now they want to investigate him for it? Sheesh.

      Why the fuck there isn’t an investigation into his Ukraine meddling though? If anything, that’s of far greater concern.

      • machinin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you intentionally avoid reading the article? Or just shit posting? Do you have an ulterior motive for spreading misinformation?

        They are investigating him for purchasing 9.2% of the stock without disclosing it appropriately. The article has good details, you might try reading it.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are investigating him for purchasing 9.2% of the stock without disclosing it appropriately. The article has good details, you might try reading it.

          Specifically the 9.2% that made him majority shareholder. And Twitter tried to sue over the late filing but that lawsuit got dismissed.

      • Kichae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He was “forced” to buy because he, uh, signed a contract saying he would. I’m sorry, but “voluntarily signed a purchase agreement” is only “forcing” if you believe people above a certain wealth level can do whatever the fuck they want with impunity.

        He could have backed out and paid the fine he agreed to pay in the case he backed out, but he didn’t want to do that, either.

        He’s not being investigated by someone else.

        He can’t win because he’s a fucking idiot.

      • reversebananimals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you rob a bank and get caught in the middle, does that mean it’s not a crime?

        It doesn’t matter if he was successful or incompetent, a crime is a crime.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          37
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you planned to rob a bank but then back out of the plan, only for the feds to force you to go through with it, that is entrapment, and your case would get thrown out.

          • NoSleep@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it’s the other way around. In Musks case not buying twitter was robbing the bank. The feds forced him to not rob the bank but he is still under investigation because he tried.

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He offered to buy Twitter of his own volition. Nobody made him do that. He offered a rather high price, and had the option to pay $1 billion to get out of it. His preference was to act like “oh, let’s just forget about that”. Of course the shareholders and executives wanted him to go through buying Twitter at the best price they could possible get, and someone with his experience and level of business dealings would know that “oh, nevermind” wouldn’t work. I’m sure he would pursue someone who signed a contract that would be in his favor and then tried to slink out of it.

        But anyway, this investigation is not about the puirchase of twitter. it’s when he bought 9-10% of the company and illegally did not disclose it properly. It’s in the first line of the article…

        Securities and Exchange Commission inquiring whether Musk broke federal law in 2022 when he bought stock in the platform

      • flipht@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s all the same thing. He “offered” to buy Twitter and then tried to back out. Market manipulation.

        The board of Twitter forced the sale, because they had every right and responsibility to their shareholders to do so.

        Now he’s wrecking the company seemingly on purpose. Market manipulation.

        • SaltySalamander@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Now he’s wrecking the company seemingly on purpose. Market manipulation.

          Seeing as how the company is now private, how is him wrecking the company “market manipulation”? Twitter isn’t on the market anymore.

          • machinin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe they are referring to him buying a significant amount of stock and failing to disclose it, which is illegal. Then talking about buying it for a high price, then trying to get out of buying it after signing the deal. There were lots of shenanigans going on before the final purchase. That’s what this is all about.