Hacker News Reader

Comment by CalChris | Hacker News Reader

Good. These were in no way innocent ties. He knew who Epstein was and misled people. Ito could be on the hook for civil fraud. The elements of fraud are:

  a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact
  with knowledge that it is false
  to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation 
  who suffers actual loss as a result.

View on HN

That's reaching, a whole lot. Ito knew who Epstein was, as did everyone else - Epstein's conviction wasn't a secret. That harms Ito through his poor decision making, but other people were just as capable of knowing who Epstein was.

Who suffered an actual loss as a result of these donations? Civil fraud is grasping, some.

If you read the article, you'll see that MIT specifically blacklisted Epstein from making donations as a result of his conviction, and Ito went behind their backs to keep getting money from him anyway. That's fraud, and MIT could definitely argue loss of reputation. I don't know if they'll go after Ito, but if they do, they'll have a pretty good case.

Out of curiosity, do you say this from firsthand knowledge as an expert in civil fraud law, or just in the message board sense of "it seems like they might have a pretty good case"?

I would be surprised if it was fraud.

But it might be covered by this: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Sectio...

Essentially any argument that donated money accepted in good faith is stripped of its criminal origins is wholly wrong.

If I steal a TV and donate it to a school, the police can recover the TV and return it to its owner. The fact that the school didn't know it was stolen is irrelevant.

Donations sourced from criminal profits are a more complex example of the same long-established legal and moral principle.

This is why the Sacklers are having such a time of it - the jury is still out on whether pushing opiates was actually criminal, but it's certainly not simply a civil case. And it's also why anyone who had any kind of association with Epstein is trying very hard to distance themselves from him.

Which is why Ito's actions weren't just stupid, but could be considered criminal in their own right.

There's no doubt Epstein was involved in some very nasty things. If profits from the nasty things were accepted unknowingly, then there's no criminal liability. But anyone who knowingly benefits from criminal acts risks being accused of being an accessory to them, even if the connection is purely financial.

  (1) a purposeful misrepresentation of a fact
  (2) with knowledge that it is false
  (3) to a victim who justifiably relies on the misrepresentation 
  (4) who suffers actual loss as a result.

(1) If I lie to you (2) knowingly, and (3) you are convinced by my lies (4) to part ways with your money, then I have defrauded you. That you nobly donated to MIT doesn't matter.

With regards to (3) and (4), who are you describing? Epstein gave the money to the Media Lab, or brokered the delivery of the money to the Media Lab from people who knew who he was.

Other donors who may not have been as willing to contribute to the lab if they knew the lab accepted monies from Epstein. That's why his donations were recategorized as anonymous even though the recipients know who they came from.

Please don’t use code preformatting for quotes. https://i.imgur.com/R9S4Hmr.jpg

[retracted]

How is it optional?

If the point of comments is for them to be read, then there’s no negotiating on this point. If you’re just posting for fun and don’t care if people can read what you’re quoting and writing about, then why are you posting at all?

HN is a place for discussion. Using code blocks for non-code citations hinders discussion. Now that you know this, willfully using them for that purpose is antithetical to good discussion.

I’d love to hear a case otherwise, but I can’t see how to construct one for you.

It is phrased as a request.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com