You may if you’re senior enough. Public figures pushing nonsense are in positions of influence. It’s mind blowing that an emerging opinion on this forum is the beneficiaries of fraud should be immune from consequences.
From a guy who laid bricks in a FTX office, to Tom brady, draw us a line. Let's see how deep guilt by association goes in your head, and how you would regulate this.
We have centuries of case law on this. If I lose money in a fraud, you can be sure as hell I’ll sue everyone who took cash out. Naïveté is not an excuse for misconduct.
Why did you find it mind-blowing? Even though you disagree, shouldn’t you find it unsurprising that most people think that ignorant employees or contractors didn’t do anything wrong, especially below the level of executive? What experiences led to your surprise?
> shouldn’t you find it unsurprising that most people think that ignorant employees or contractors didn’t do anything wrong, especially below the level of executive?
We aren’t the first generation asking these questions. Most of this is settled law. Profiting from perpetuating fraud generally involves clawbacks. Where the thresholds lie is a matter for courts. But everyone involved will be drawn into that process. If you find that distasteful, consider whether you are profiting from fraud.
Ah, I see. You’re confused. You’re thinking of precedent for individuals aware of it, who knowingly perpetuated it (who can typically be charged criminally) and you’re perhaps conflating it with situations where innocent employees at a company lost retirement investments or jobs due to the collapse of the fraudulent company.
While it’s true that these are old questions, it simply is not settled law that claws back money from employees who worked at a company doing wrong but didn’t perpetuate the fraud themselves.
So, the answer to my question might be that you acquired a misunderstanding of the law at some point. You also believed that most people in HN are versed in this area of business law so expected them to see this your way.
> thinking of precedent for individuals aware of it, who knowingly perpetuated it (who can typically be charged criminally) and you’re perhaps conflating it with situations where innocent employees at a company lost retirement investments or jobs
Nope. If they were aware, that’s criminal. If they were bystanders, that’s just tough luck. We are discussing liability.
Promoters have been held responsible for fraud, particularly around securities promotion, for over a century. This isn’t arcane law. It’s commonsensical for anyone not making their living peddling fraud.
You don't have to give your paycheck back though.