I understand 'material weakness' to mean falsified/faked/misleading/corrupted. 1) what happened to basic language?, 2) do the legal/PR people using these words honestly believe they are fooling anyone?
Example: $100 missing from a single petty cash account would have almost no impact on a multi-site business and wouldn't be reported as "material" losses. $100 missing from every petty cash account would be different and probably would be reported as a "material" deficiency because it means there is an issue with controls.
disclaimer: My experience with accounting is a single accounting class and having run a budget for a business with $60k monthly for a few months before I left.
If they say 'fraud', 'theft', 'lying' they are implying intent, which can be hard to prove (maybe they were just incompetent or mislead by someone else?).
A material weakness means there is a significant to the business (aka material) difference between what was written/reported, and what investigation found was true.
WHY that is doesn't matter for the purposes of clawing things back, and since they have solid proof of it, there you go.
Speculating on the reason or if a crime was committed until it's proven in a court of law is what gets high powered and highly paid attorneys excited, and the folks who are getting fired and the money clawed back can still afford those in spades even afterwards. Credit Suisse probably feels they already have enough problems.
do you have a source? this sounds nuts
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/20/undercover-police...
>dismantled by Fed’s using obscene methods, like getting suspects pregnant
The article says:
>One of the spies was Bob Lambert, who has already admitted that he tricked a second woman into having a long-term relationship with him, as part of an intricate attempt to bolster his credibility as a committed campaigner.
I guess the statement is technically true in the sense that the group got infiltrated by the feds, that somehow led to the group being "dismantled", and because the infiltration involved getting the activists pregnant you could say that it was "dismantled by [...] getting suspects pregnant". However, it's massively misleading because reading it at face value makes me think the government was getting people pregnant with the explicit aim of preventing them from protesting (because they're too busy being pregnant). I'm not sure why you didn't go with went with that framing rather than a more reasonable one of "dismantled by Fed’s using obscene methods, like having children with activists to gain their trust".
>government was getting people pregnant with the explicit aim of preventing them from protesting
Undercover cops getting people pregnant to maintain cover since they can’t control their sexual promiscuity?