Re:SEC Charges Eight Social Media Influencers in $100M Stock...
by time_to_smile on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @12:37PM
(#33986846)
> didn't do a blatantly obvious
For any crime it not being "blatantly obvious" is pretty essential to it not being prosecuted. I'm no fan of Jim Cramer, but he makes enough money just giving bad advice that there's no reason for him to also be secretly profiting from it illegally. In addition he's high profile enough that I'm sure plenty of people have looked into it hoping to find something.
But if he was secretly profiting form it illegally then that illegal activity would have to be made "blatantly obvious" in order for him to be convicted, and the federal government doesn't like prosecuting unless they're near certain of a conviction.
These influencers were performing an easy to observer and therefore easy to prosecute crime, which is why they are being charged.
For any crime it not being "blatantly obvious" is pretty essential to it not being prosecuted. I'm no fan of Jim Cramer, but he makes enough money just giving bad advice that there's no reason for him to also be secretly profiting from it illegally. In addition he's high profile enough that I'm sure plenty of people have looked into it hoping to find something.
But if he was secretly profiting form it illegally then that illegal activity would have to be made "blatantly obvious" in order for him to be convicted, and the federal government doesn't like prosecuting unless they're near certain of a conviction.
These influencers were performing an easy to observer and therefore easy to prosecute crime, which is why they are being charged.