SEC charges Kim Kardashian for unlawfully touting crypto security(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
SEC charges Kim Kardashian for unlawfully touting crypto security
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-03/sec-charges-kim-kardashian-for-touting-crypto-asset-security-l8sp7fyr
133 comments
This comment is tongue in cheek, but it's not meant to be pithy nor sarcastic — I mean this with sincerity.
Let me be the first to extend my heartfelt congratulations. You avoided the inevitable SEC enforcement action and DoJ indictment!
Thanks to your skill, moral backbone and foresight you're not spending $900/hr/head on a cadre of lawyers. That's better than how most people fare in such a scenario. So, congratulations!
However, you still need to maintain OPSEC and STFU. You've already said things in other comments that aren't the wisest things to say. I would stop right now and call a very good lawyer.
If you don't know how to find one, then call a few and ask whom they'd recommend. Zero in on the choice from there. I sincerely hope that you won't disclose any further details here or elsewhere. Especially in writing.
And remember, DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE (without a great lawyer present), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Let me be the first to extend my heartfelt congratulations. You avoided the inevitable SEC enforcement action and DoJ indictment!
Thanks to your skill, moral backbone and foresight you're not spending $900/hr/head on a cadre of lawyers. That's better than how most people fare in such a scenario. So, congratulations!
However, you still need to maintain OPSEC and STFU. You've already said things in other comments that aren't the wisest things to say. I would stop right now and call a very good lawyer.
If you don't know how to find one, then call a few and ask whom they'd recommend. Zero in on the choice from there. I sincerely hope that you won't disclose any further details here or elsewhere. Especially in writing.
And remember, DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE (without a great lawyer present), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Good advice and classic video.
Have you been in touch with the SEC? Their investigation is ongoing, and it sounds like you might have info that could help them clean things up…
I haven’t reached out to them and I haven’t been contacted. There was a short window where I was super admin for their entire Google workspace, but everything was pretty cryptic and I had limited time to exfil data.
I seriously contemplated going public but I started receiving death threats when I left the project, so I took the… cautious approach.
Maybe now that the project is wholly sunk, I should make a YouTube video.
I seriously contemplated going public but I started receiving death threats when I left the project, so I took the… cautious approach.
Maybe now that the project is wholly sunk, I should make a YouTube video.
You have a legal responsibility to share the information you know with the SEC. Do what's right and don't be afraid of these tech bros, they're probably busy pissing their pants right now anyways.
> You have a legal responsibility to share the information you know with the SEC
Are you a lawyer? Don't think you're right here...
Don't take legal advice from random HN threads.
Are you a lawyer? Don't think you're right here...
Don't take legal advice from random HN threads.
> Do what's right and don't be afraid of these tech bros, they're probably busy pissing their pants right now anyways.
This is a good point. While I'm glad they're starting to go after celebrities who tout scams, a lot of these people are "just" reading something from a card or tweeting something in return for a check. They really need to get the folks who contracted with the celebs and told them what to say, too!
This is a good point. While I'm glad they're starting to go after celebrities who tout scams, a lot of these people are "just" reading something from a card or tweeting something in return for a check. They really need to get the folks who contracted with the celebs and told them what to say, too!
Do what's right, which is to protect your neck. The person doesn't really have anything of substance to add.
If the person did decide to go to the SEC, here's what you'd need:
1.) A good lawyer (don't go talking to investigators without a lawyer)
2.) A sit down with the lawyer and the investigators
3.) ???
4.) Worry if the death threats are actually meaningful
A dozen crypto bros may not be too worrying. But you don't know who else got juice from the scheme. There were already unknown boxing promoters mentioned. Boxing is a dirty sport with real organized crime ties. And crypto is used to facilitate huge amounts of money laundering, which attracts criminals of all stripes.
Easy for random HN commenter to say go to the SEC. In real life, there are consequences that the person just doesn't need.
If the person did decide to go to the SEC, here's what you'd need:
1.) A good lawyer (don't go talking to investigators without a lawyer)
2.) A sit down with the lawyer and the investigators
3.) ???
4.) Worry if the death threats are actually meaningful
A dozen crypto bros may not be too worrying. But you don't know who else got juice from the scheme. There were already unknown boxing promoters mentioned. Boxing is a dirty sport with real organized crime ties. And crypto is used to facilitate huge amounts of money laundering, which attracts criminals of all stripes.
Easy for random HN commenter to say go to the SEC. In real life, there are consequences that the person just doesn't need.
Why did you receive death threats?
Whistleblower awards can range from 10 to 30 percent of the money collected when the monetary sanctions exceed $1 million
Pretty sure the whistle has already been blown on this one. But it's always better to be treated as a cooperating witness with an immunity agreement rather than as an indicted co-conspirator. (The SEC can't bring criminal charges, but they do pass on any evidence of criminal activity to the Justice Department.)
Seems like there's cash to be made here - find a bullshit blockchain project (not too difficult - finding the opposite is the difficult bit), collect evidence, resign at the first sign of criminal activity, blow the whistle and enjoy a share of the resulting fine.
This would be a great "natural selector criteria" that whittles down whatever's left of crypto scammers.
Another possible benefit is the cost of doing business (by taking valid precautions) for those scammers going up.
Another possible benefit is the cost of doing business (by taking valid precautions) for those scammers going up.
I can't imagine thinking that posting this on a public forum makes any sense at all. You have everything to lose by making statements like this, and nothing to gain.
I wonder, does he have much to lose if he's faking it? After all, we have no way to tell whether he is telling the truth. He might very well be lying for fake internet points.
I guess not, if he's faking it, though "we have no way to tell" is trivially true of most any unverifiable personal anecdotes on the internet.
I'd say my statement has an implicit "Assuming this is true..." tacked onto the beginning of it.
I'd say my statement has an implicit "Assuming this is true..." tacked onto the beginning of it.
Never underestimate the lure of appearing in the know. Tons of people met their downfall through babbling about their damaging secrets.
[deleted]
As a nonlawyer I’m curious what your risk might be. You accepted money for consulting services from what is apparently some sort of fraud conspiracy? And you seem to have info the SEC would want and might feel compelled to eke out of you with a little pressure.
Your story seems to put you in the moral right. But what about the legal right? Is it time to get a quick lawyer checkup?
(I’m not implying anything. The answer may very well be a definitive “no, this is a nothingburger.”)
Your story seems to put you in the moral right. But what about the legal right? Is it time to get a quick lawyer checkup?
(I’m not implying anything. The answer may very well be a definitive “no, this is a nothingburger.”)
also not a lawyer but I have a fair amount of experience in risk management, and I did consult multiple attorneys prior to my engagement.
I’d like to think I made ethical decisions along the way. I won’t disclose more details here, but I was very vocal about my concerns with the project and “team” and I used official social accounts to publicly warn EMAX’s audience to be careful.
I still feel pretty guilty for being associated in any way.
There is nothing that proves I’m not just making this up. I’m happy to cooperate, but not under pressure.
I’d like to think I made ethical decisions along the way. I won’t disclose more details here, but I was very vocal about my concerns with the project and “team” and I used official social accounts to publicly warn EMAX’s audience to be careful.
I still feel pretty guilty for being associated in any way.
There is nothing that proves I’m not just making this up. I’m happy to cooperate, but not under pressure.
Just keep in mind that when the Feds have a project they're committed to, they don't care about how you feel about ethics and motivations. They can, without losing any sleep, decide to turn the screws on you for some perceived legal violation in order to get you to co-operate. Your openness to co-operate "but not under pressure" isn't necessarily your choice to make.
This feels like one of those times where someone really needs a lawyer but is too "smart" to think they need one. I'm friends with a group of about a dozen current/former criminal defense lawyers and this feels like the beginning of one of their classic stories. Just please be careful. =)
This feels like one of those times where someone really needs a lawyer but is too "smart" to think they need one. I'm friends with a group of about a dozen current/former criminal defense lawyers and this feels like the beginning of one of their classic stories. Just please be careful. =)
Thank you :)
>experience in risk management
>Makes public statements of involvement in crypto scam being investigated by the SEC
>I'd like to think I made ethical decisions...I still feel pretty guilty
Stop digging man..
>Makes public statements of involvement in crypto scam being investigated by the SEC
>I'd like to think I made ethical decisions...I still feel pretty guilty
Stop digging man..
...two dozen crypto bros and boxing promoters... For some reason this sentence had me howling with laughter.
Delete this. You have about 6 minutes before the HN window expire.
Don't post about involvement during an ongoing investigation, especially not from your main.
Even if you think you have done no harm. Speaking from experience :)
Don't post about involvement during an ongoing investigation, especially not from your main.
Even if you think you have done no harm. Speaking from experience :)
lol, too late. screenshots have already been taken.
this is a throwaway :)
You sure you’re posting from the right account? You’ve been using this one for at least 9 months (as far as I bothered going back)
Kim's whole business is doing paid promotions to her Instagram followers-- typically $250k-$500k per promotion. Turns out that's illegal for securities, unless you disclose how much you got paid. If she'd added a footnote to her post, she would have been fine-- maybe something like "The brilliant folks at EthereumMax paid me $250k to bring you this message."
Such a footnote wouldn't have hurt the ad's effectiveness. There were news articles at the time warning people not to take investment advice from Kim Kardashian[1], but that didn't seem to deter people.
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-kim-kardashian-hawking-...
Such a footnote wouldn't have hurt the ad's effectiveness. There were news articles at the time warning people not to take investment advice from Kim Kardashian[1], but that didn't seem to deter people.
[1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-kim-kardashian-hawking-...
> illegal for securities, unless you disclose how much you got paid
Since she certainly has "people" who know this and advise her, I can only assume that they thought that doing this would reduce the effectiveness of the advertising. Someone made a judgement call (heh!) and decided that the expected fine, if prosecuted, was less than she'd make from the promotion.
Since she certainly has "people" who know this and advise her, I can only assume that they thought that doing this would reduce the effectiveness of the advertising. Someone made a judgement call (heh!) and decided that the expected fine, if prosecuted, was less than she'd make from the promotion.
How can anybody look at the 'official' Ethereum Max twitter and not see it as a sham?[1]
The problem with crypto is that your average retail user, and probably even a lot of regulators, do not understand the difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max.
[1] https://twitter.com/ethereum_max
The problem with crypto is that your average retail user, and probably even a lot of regulators, do not understand the difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max.
[1] https://twitter.com/ethereum_max
The problem with crypto is that the use cases are so limited that, to the average retail user, there simply is no difference between Ethereum and Ethereum Max. Both are mysterious digital things you buy and hope the price goes up.
One also hopes a Boeing 737 with MAX in the name goes up. But it has to come down one way or another right?
One has value and utility besides its market price, the other does not. But to the retail investor who does not use either, and knows little or nothing about blockchains and decentralized protocols, they are equivalent.
> One has value and utility besides its market price, the other does not
This is impossible to discern.
This is impossible to discern.
Then maybe you are in the 'average retail investor' bucket, without much grasp of the protocols and software underlying these tokens.
You could replace what you said with stocks, investing, and finance in general actually.
Surely a retail investor understands that the AAPL represents claims on the future earnings of Apple, and TSLA represents claims on the future earnings of Tesla. People know what those companies do in the real world.
And most understand that Dogecoin and Ethereum are different coins, and probably even that Ethereum and Ethereum Max are different coins. But they often do not know the difference between these protocols or projects.
It would be like putting stock tickers on all the hundreds of competing JavaScript frameworks on GitHub and asking the average non-dev what to invest in.
It would be like putting stock tickers on all the hundreds of competing JavaScript frameworks on GitHub and asking the average non-dev what to invest in.
You might be surprised. In my experience many people have no idea what a stock actually is or how the market works and prices are "determined". I have run into so many folks that even have a 401(k) and don't even know they can invest it in things other than the default allocation. Even if they did know they would have no idea what to do, which is even worse because a 401(k) heavily limits your investment options so it makes it simple.
I’m not surprised, because all of those things you mention are different and much more specific than I’m referring to.
The vague idea that “if Tesla the company does well, TSLA the stock goes up, in a loose sense” is much simpler and it’s hard for me to imagine there are many retail investors that don’t understand that on some level.
The vague idea that “if Tesla the company does well, TSLA the stock goes up, in a loose sense” is much simpler and it’s hard for me to imagine there are many retail investors that don’t understand that on some level.
I'll give you that (although that principle is so generic it isn't even actionable in practice). But if you asked the average person in the U.S. who has a portfolio (I believe it's only like 50% of Americans hold stock), I'd imagine a good deal of them couldn't even tell you what companies they own.
Probably true (given that it’s true of me and I work in finance), but again irrelevant to my point.
I’m not sure how the principle is not actionable in practice. Surely recognizing that everyone has iPhones and that trend isn’t stopping is enough for a lay person to recognize AAPL is reasonably safe as an investment.
I’m not sure how the principle is not actionable in practice. Surely recognizing that everyone has iPhones and that trend isn’t stopping is enough for a lay person to recognize AAPL is reasonably safe as an investment.
AAPL might be a safe bet, but maybe not? I'm sure the company will be profitable for quite some time but stock prices are not driven by profits as you know. They are built on expectations. A lot of the expectation for Apple is built into it's $2T market cap.
You might of thought AAPL was a safe bet at the beginning of the year, but now it's down 22.23%. At this point we don't know if it's going to take a year to recover or a decade.
So I know I am preaching to the choir but it's not just "company doing well so stock is safe". There's the context of the overall economy not to mention a lot of companies look like they are doing great until one day they don't.
You might of thought AAPL was a safe bet at the beginning of the year, but now it's down 22.23%. At this point we don't know if it's going to take a year to recover or a decade.
So I know I am preaching to the choir but it's not just "company doing well so stock is safe". There's the context of the overall economy not to mention a lot of companies look like they are doing great until one day they don't.
[deleted]
I don't think so. They think "I like my Tesla", that's it.
The barrier-to-entry for listing on a stock exchange is rather a lot higher than it is for creating a crypto token.
While your statement is factually correct, you may be surprised at just how easy it is to be listed on a "stock exchange". While the larger, well known exchanges have a higher barrier to entry, there are lots of smaller exchanges willing to list all sorts of things.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Whether it's a sham or not seems to have nothing to do with it. She's in trouble for paid promotion of securities, which who the hell knows which crypto project the SEC is going to decide is a security?
> Kardashian included “#AD” at the bottom of the post in 2021, according to the SEC. Despite that, the SEC said investors weren’t made aware of her being paid for the ad.
Yes they were - not thinking a social media post with '#ad' is an ad is akin to thinking the TV ads are just made by actors that like the products.
Yes they were - not thinking a social media post with '#ad' is an ad is akin to thinking the TV ads are just made by actors that like the products.
Woah this is a pretty meaty part of the allegation because I 100% would assume that would be good enough to inform your audience that it was an add. Especially given how small a tweet is, how can you reasonably say that a consumer read the content of the tweet but did not read the #ad part?
Twitch streamers are paid to play games all the time. It was one of their large revenue streams. They very rarely if ever mention that it is an ad, but they put in their title #ad exactly like this accusation. Obviously the SEC is unlikely to care bout streamers shilling video games to children, but seems like that could be a problem in the future.
Twitch streamers are paid to play games all the time. It was one of their large revenue streams. They very rarely if ever mention that it is an ad, but they put in their title #ad exactly like this accusation. Obviously the SEC is unlikely to care bout streamers shilling video games to children, but seems like that could be a problem in the future.
IANAL, but I believe the "#ad" requirement is from the FTC. The SEC may have a higher bar, since this is securities-related. Just like putting "#ad" on Tweet promoting medicine wouldn't fly with the FDA.
Proof systems like this need wider adaptation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Far too often these fines are simply considered "the cost of doing business".
Worse, in many cases they agree to pay the fine without admitting guilt. It is almost like the government simply wants a cut of the action instead of discouraging it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Far too often these fines are simply considered "the cost of doing business".
Worse, in many cases they agree to pay the fine without admitting guilt. It is almost like the government simply wants a cut of the action instead of discouraging it?
Tangent, but we recently had some rich guy drunk driving an e-scooter in Germany. The fine was extremely low because in most cases the court estimates how much a person makes without checking, and lowball it to ~1500€/month (it’s usually not worth researching how much someone makes and by lowballing it chances are the person won’t object). The case resulted in 30 day-fines, so 1500€.
But this guy did object the judgement. Well, the objection was overruled, but by now the court had heard of who this was. The new day fine was 2,670€ resulting in a total fine of 80,100€ :D
But this guy did object the judgement. Well, the objection was overruled, but by now the court had heard of who this was. The new day fine was 2,670€ resulting in a total fine of 80,100€ :D
I wish the US would do fine scaling. By circumstance I know a significant t number of people worth $200M and up. All of them consider fines to be convenience fees.
I don't know. It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts. Is the court there to provide a fair verdict and fair punishment or to dissuade behaviors? If it is the former why should the persons assets be considered as all. If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?
Fair punishment when it comes to fines should depend on the income. And maybe net wealth too excluding primary housing to certain median level of community.
Does a same fine have same deterrent level for both sub-minimum wage worker and billionaire? As that is clearly the goal of the fines. I think they should. And likely the billionaire should pay much higher relative proportion than someone at minimum wage as they have so much more disposable income.
Does a same fine have same deterrent level for both sub-minimum wage worker and billionaire? As that is clearly the goal of the fines. I think they should. And likely the billionaire should pay much higher relative proportion than someone at minimum wage as they have so much more disposable income.
A fair verdict and fair punishment can also be one that dissuades the behavior in the future. It can be both.
It seems to me that the only point of punishment is to dissuade?
Mostly, though it could be used to dissuade that person from repeat offense, AND/OR to dissuade others from committing that offense, AND/OR as a retribution for the act.
An example of the 2nd one would be the death penalty, there is no 'corrective' behavior option for the person, cause they be dead. This is usually marketed as a deterrent for others, however studies have shown this rarely works. Most often severe punishments like death more appropriately fall under the 3rd case above.
An example of the 2nd one would be the death penalty, there is no 'corrective' behavior option for the person, cause they be dead. This is usually marketed as a deterrent for others, however studies have shown this rarely works. Most often severe punishments like death more appropriately fall under the 3rd case above.
> If the later why are traffic violations also not levied as apart of your net worth?
You did not read the link at all, correct?
It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines".
> It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts.
The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people.
If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again?
Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear?
The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke.
Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.
You did not read the link at all, correct?
It clearly states that in places like Finland traffic violations are where you see "day fines".
> It seems to me that it is a question of the purpose of the courts.
The purpose of the courts is to interpret/enforce laws. Government creates these laws based on the will of the people.
If the purpose of the laws is not to "dissuade behaviours" why do we put people in jail? Isn't the whole purpose of the jail system to remove freedoms so they can think about their actions and not do that again?
Taking peoples money via "fines" is also intended to "dissuade behaviours" so your point is unclear?
The problem is the system has become somewhat of a joke.
Large bank creates thousands of fake accounts and earns millions in fees. Large bank is fined an amount below their "ill gotten gains" so the fine is nothing but a "cost of doing business". They are still ahead of the game at the end of the day.
[deleted]
It looks like the fine was much more than she got paid.
I still find the whole idea of "settling" for money instead of going to court and getting a guilty/innocent ruling troubling.
This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system.
Wealthy and get in trouble - "fines"
Poor and get in trouble - court, potential jail time.
This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system.
Wealthy and get in trouble - "fines"
Poor and get in trouble - court, potential jail time.
> This is not offered to "poor" people, so we have a clear two-tier justice system.
This is absolutely not true in the US. Poor people are very much encouraged to settle without going to trial. In fact, the vast majority of all cases are resolved that way. Poor people relying on public defenders tend to get pushed into settling more easily than wealthy folks, even.
Indeed, it is the lack of public defenders that create a two-tier justice system more than anything in the US.
This is absolutely not true in the US. Poor people are very much encouraged to settle without going to trial. In fact, the vast majority of all cases are resolved that way. Poor people relying on public defenders tend to get pushed into settling more easily than wealthy folks, even.
Indeed, it is the lack of public defenders that create a two-tier justice system more than anything in the US.
Totally fair, I was just replying to the notion that she'd made more from the scam then she paid in fines.
In the particular instance, the fine is 5x what she was paid to do endorsement, so I'd say we're in the right ballpark here...
Any one who promoted this project should be branded as totally bereft of any integrity or sense of judgment, and denied any kind of platform to influence society.
There are celebrities who got involved in the crypto market, but did so thoughtfully, and not in the manner of Maywather and Kardashian. Case in point, Terry Crews:
https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/everyone-can-be-rich-i...
There are celebrities who got involved in the crypto market, but did so thoughtfully, and not in the manner of Maywather and Kardashian. Case in point, Terry Crews:
https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/everyone-can-be-rich-i...
Now do Randi Zuckerberg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp0diaVLPrQ
LOL. That's legitimately entertaining and hysterical.
EthereumMax was not only “crypto security”, but it was a clean cut fraud from the start to the end. The SEC could have gone with simple fraud charges, as they have done with earlier scams like scam ICOs from 2017, but now they have started to push this “crypto security” term around.
I surely hope Mrs Kardashian got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud, instead of dollars.
I surely hope Mrs Kardashian got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud, instead of dollars.
> got her $250k payment with vesting and cliffed EthereumMax token for her promotion for fraud,
I recognize all of these words as English, but I have no idea what you're saying
I recognize all of these words as English, but I have no idea what you're saying
The SEC added more enforcement staff to their "cyber" unit a few months ago. The number of crypto-related enforcement actions just increased from about two a month to four in one week.[1] Until recently, they were still working down the backlog from the ICO scams of 2018-2019. Now, they're going after much more recent violations.
It's hammer time for crypto scams.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti...
It's hammer time for crypto scams.
[1] https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/cybersecurity-enforcement-acti...
Source article: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11116.pdf
Also, it can be interesting to read the filings daily posted here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.htm
Also, it can be interesting to read the filings daily posted here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin.htm
Nothing that the launch of EthereumKim won't solve
She agreed not to promote any digital asset for 3 years, so it will have to wait a while.
Slate has some background on this story from a year ago: https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/ben-mckenzie-crypto-cel...
Does very little to help the laimen that got fleeced in yet another crypto pump-and-dump... I wonder if the whole ordeal was still profitable for her. You know it was for the Eth Max founders. At least they had the guts to officially call it a "crypto asset security"
Does very little to help the laimen that got fleeced in yet another crypto pump-and-dump... I wonder if the whole ordeal was still profitable for her. You know it was for the Eth Max founders. At least they had the guts to officially call it a "crypto asset security"
What about those who paid her and profited from this scheme?
A good start.
I hope the investigation keeps going and exposes more of the comedic web of fraud that fuels the crypto ecosystem.
I hope the investigation keeps going and exposes more of the comedic web of fraud that fuels the crypto ecosystem.
Yes. The SEC and the regulators are actually doing their jobs for investigating and charging scammers and it doesn't matter if they are as pseudonymous or as famous as Kim Kardashian.
So there you go.
So there you go.
$1.26 million fine for someone with a $1.8 billion net worth is like fining a millionaire $700.
You’re not going to change their behavior.
You’re not going to change their behavior.
$1.26m is still $1.26m. We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had.
How much did she get from this crypto deal? 400k? Then her work lost her almost 3x the amount she made. Is she willing to keep paying to work? I don't think so.
How much did she get from this crypto deal? 400k? Then her work lost her almost 3x the amount she made. Is she willing to keep paying to work? I don't think so.
> We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had.
This means I should be able to steal at the supermarket and if caught, only pay for what I stole?
This means I should be able to steal at the supermarket and if caught, only pay for what I stole?
She actually got 250k from the deal and was fined 1.26m, is that enough?
She was paid by the project founders 250k. You have no idea what she profited by pumping and dumping the shitcoin itself.
Or how about we actually put them in jail when they commit crimes? A poor person stealing from a supermarket certainly risks jail time.
No, they don't. Felony theft requires in excess of hundreds of dollars of theft.
Now go rob a supermarket with a firearm and that's a different story.
Now go rob a supermarket with a firearm and that's a different story.
In my state, someone shoplifting less than $150 on their first offense is categorized as a summary offense which puts someone at risk of 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300.
Steal $1,000 though and that’s a 3rd degree felony with up to 7 years in jail and $15,000 fine.
Steal $1,000 though and that’s a 3rd degree felony with up to 7 years in jail and $15,000 fine.
You can go to jail for misdemeanors, look up your state's laws.
There is a day and night difference between stealing and fraud.
And this is barely fraud btw. The only reason she is being fined because they they didn't file a form with the SEC for approval which would've meant they could only sell to "accredited investors".
Don't you see they are lettering pissing at you. They think your too stupid to invest. You supposedly live in the most free country in the world but you need permission from the government to invest your friends company (or for your freind to ask u for investment). This is the world you want? parasite.
And this is barely fraud btw. The only reason she is being fined because they they didn't file a form with the SEC for approval which would've meant they could only sell to "accredited investors".
Don't you see they are lettering pissing at you. They think your too stupid to invest. You supposedly live in the most free country in the world but you need permission from the government to invest your friends company (or for your freind to ask u for investment). This is the world you want? parasite.
_You_ don't. Others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
Specifically, that's based on (aggregate) income, not net worth, but it still intends to be more proportionate to avoid making crimes legal for rich people.
There was actually a recent case in Germany of a wealthy man taking to court over a traffic violation fine, the fine being upheld in court and subsequently corrected to a much larger fine because the original fine was based on a much lower estimate of his income and by challenging it he had to reveal his actual income.
Of course the problem with linear scales like this is that wealth doesn't scale linearly (e.g. the practical difference between an income of $10k and $0 is much greater than between $10k and $20k) but it still seems more reasonable than "punishing based on the impact" alone if it is after all intended to be a punishment (and it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons).
Specifically, that's based on (aggregate) income, not net worth, but it still intends to be more proportionate to avoid making crimes legal for rich people.
There was actually a recent case in Germany of a wealthy man taking to court over a traffic violation fine, the fine being upheld in court and subsequently corrected to a much larger fine because the original fine was based on a much lower estimate of his income and by challenging it he had to reveal his actual income.
Of course the problem with linear scales like this is that wealth doesn't scale linearly (e.g. the practical difference between an income of $10k and $0 is much greater than between $10k and $20k) but it still seems more reasonable than "punishing based on the impact" alone if it is after all intended to be a punishment (and it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons).
No we also add in a punitive fine as a deterrent so the crime doesn’t happen again in the future. Punishment should be equal which means high net worth criminals should pay proportional punitive fines.
A completely unrelated observation, but some countries actually fine based on a person's net worth.
Here is an example from Finland where someone received a 54.000 Euro speeding ticket: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
Here is an example from Finland where someone received a 54.000 Euro speeding ticket: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
Off-topic & genuinely curious: How would you have typed/displayed if the amount was 54,000.42?
Ah! Nice. So, all the mathematicians walked into a bar and got into a fight.
54 000,42 is also not unreasonable alternative.
Yep, it is actually the recommended way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_groupi...
It has been "ruined" by typewriters and computers, in hand writing the normal way here was to use a "high" dot to separate thousands and the comma for decimals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_groupi...
It has been "ruined" by typewriters and computers, in hand writing the normal way here was to use a "high" dot to separate thousands and the comma for decimals.
The fine is supposed to act as a deterrent, right?
Article says she got paid $250,000 for the endorsement, so she lost 5x that amount.
And if you steal $5 from a grocery store if it's your first offense, in my state it's a summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and fine of up to $300 (60x the amount).
The problem with these crimes is that you'll get away with it some multiplier of times you get caught. So if you can do it 20 times and get caught once it doesn't matter if you lost 5x the amount. You're still ahead and can chalk the little fines up to the cost of doing illegal business.
The problem with these crimes is that you'll get away with it some multiplier of times you get caught. So if you can do it 20 times and get caught once it doesn't matter if you lost 5x the amount. You're still ahead and can chalk the little fines up to the cost of doing illegal business.
If the SEC only fines 5x the profit, they have to fine at least 20% of offenses to make this an unprofitable business practice (never mind punishing it). Does the SEC even have the manpower for that?
She’s not a criminal. She got paid to promote something and she did. Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she’s paid in much more than she made.
Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
>She's not a criminal.
Technically, sure, but only because she settled the charges. Settling doesn't mean you aren't a criminal, you just weren't convicted in court.
>Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she's paid in much more than she made.
Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined.
>Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
Classy.
Technically, sure, but only because she settled the charges. Settling doesn't mean you aren't a criminal, you just weren't convicted in court.
>Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she's paid in much more than she made.
Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined.
>Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
Classy.
> Nope. ~$250k is what she was paid, $1.6million is what she was fined.
If she was paid 250K and fined 1.6M, then she's going to pay in much more than she made. Do I misunderstand the terms of the settlement here?
> Classy
This is a fair point and I agree it doesn't sound _great_, but I would just like to see a little agency now and then. Both things could be true at once.
If she was paid 250K and fined 1.6M, then she's going to pay in much more than she made. Do I misunderstand the terms of the settlement here?
> Classy
This is a fair point and I agree it doesn't sound _great_, but I would just like to see a little agency now and then. Both things could be true at once.
The SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed.
Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
> I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information.
As someone with 22 years in equity trading technology Real-time market data is NOT privileged information.
This is not "material non-public information" because every professional trader has this access.
Having access to see client orders prior to them reaching a public exchange IS material non-public and this will put you in the "you need to have all your trades reviewed" category.
If you want further proof, most retail client trading systems now offer "real-time" market data, at least for the US markets.
As someone with 22 years in equity trading technology Real-time market data is NOT privileged information.
This is not "material non-public information" because every professional trader has this access.
Having access to see client orders prior to them reaching a public exchange IS material non-public and this will put you in the "you need to have all your trades reviewed" category.
If you want further proof, most retail client trading systems now offer "real-time" market data, at least for the US markets.
So today I learned the reason I was in that category is, in fact, my visibility to my employer's trades, not visibility of the stock feed, itself. I'd been under this misconception since 2006!
[deleted]
Ok - fair point. I'll redact my "not a criminal statement" since the definition is just breaking the law - which she did - and because ignorance is never a defense.
Yeah, but if there wasn't a criminal case, and she doesn't admit to fault, how can you conclude that she broke the law?
I don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way.
> Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.
> Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.
> She’s not a criminal.
And the million dollars she paid to settle this, was that a "charitable donation"?
It is unfortunate the US allows wealthy people to "settle" via fines while the poor often face jail time instead.
Had she not "settled" it would have went to court, and if she was found guilty what would that have made her then?
And the million dollars she paid to settle this, was that a "charitable donation"?
It is unfortunate the US allows wealthy people to "settle" via fines while the poor often face jail time instead.
Had she not "settled" it would have went to court, and if she was found guilty what would that have made her then?
[deleted]
They gave me a sizable sum of cash up front, no contract, to act as a general and technical consultant. This happened less than 48hrs after I met some of the main "team" which consisted of over two dozen crypto bros and various boxing promoters, none of whom understood the most basic concepts of blockchains, transactions, currency, regulation, etc.
I was with them when they contacted Kim to shill, and I actually advised them to take a much different approach, but of course, I was ignored, and I promptly left the project about a week later.
EMAX is really the epitome of everything wrong in cryptocurrency and I'm glad to see a fraction of justice being served here. Now if only the dozens of other "team" members who were (from my firsthand perspective) equally culpable in defrauding the public could also be held accountable, that would be great.