The board and Jensen himself probably don't want to test that in court, so they preemptively step down so the prosecutors would rather not pursue.
Do you simply take them to be fools?
Instead of playing lawyer with you it's quite obviously reasonable to assume the board recognizes his actions open up a Pandora's box of severe legal liability. And quite frankly, I'm not really impressed by your pedestrian analysis of export law. If it was that clear cut he would still be there, and the modus operandi of the Chinese spy wouldn't even make any sense.
For your analysis to have any credibility Nvidia would have to disregard its own self interest. Is that really how you think the world works?
How would you know this?
this "data center" was one of those locations that Alibaba was supposed to remotely use, assuming the terms were that they had to. the implication is that this "data center" was fake and that GPUs were physically routed to China still.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/beyond-the-spy-sc...
“In facilities across the region, Megaspeed rents Nvidia chips to Chinese tech giants such as Alibaba, an arrangement that does not violate current US export control regulations.”
If Alibaba is allowed to remotely access Nvidia hardware physically located in Singapore, what purpose does the export control serve?
Also, it has not been established that any export control laws have been violated.