Hacker News Reader

Comment by vasco | Hacker News Reader

> substantially more

I was curious, so I checked Jake Paul:

> Respondent shall, within 20 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement of $25,019, prejudgment interest of $1,811, and a civil money penalty in the amount of $75,057 to the Securities and Exchange Commission

Jake Paul was paid $25k for a tweet and was ordered to pay back a bit over $100k. Only other restriction is he can't be paid for anything related to crypto in the next 3 years. Paying back the original money + 3x as fine seems reasonable I guess.

View on HN

in isolation maybe that's ok-ish?

How many other high-paying tweets that look like fraud did he keep all the cash? Do we know? Was it none?

"Dang, turns out that one is a loser - they got me on that one." Can be a business expense in a profitable operation.

I see this kind of thing as fraud and there /needs/ to be conviction and jail, even a week in minimum security. There has to be consequences that aren't a business expense for getting in on fraud.

The "I'm a dumb celebrity so I didn't know" defence is just garbage, they should be terrified of accepting such "gigs". Utterly crapping themselves about how bad it could go.

okay, sure but that needs a criminal indictment along with subsequently being proven guilty.

that’s very different than a civil charge with a prescribed fine that can be paid to avoid the civil trial.

the SEC occasionally refers cases to the DOJ for a criminal trial. but tbh, they kind of don't want crypto defendants sweating because the SEC’s logic will get challenged, potentially leaving the nation with no regulator at all. they need civil settlements as much as you need justice for bagholding something a celebrity shilled.

I suspect the number of tweets each of those celebrities made that [likely] fell foul of SEC guidelines was one. It's not a difficult thing for the SEC to check.

A 3x fine is no deterrent if your action is easily concealed but promoting services to a public audience, by definition, is not concealed

It’s all relative, perhaps.

It might be different if anybody believed these celebrities were actively trying to defraud and harm people.

The reality is more likely that these people are effectively human billboards. People pay them to read a script, and they read it. Each week a different product, different script, same deal.

So they got suckered into reading an illegal script. They get penalized (rightly) but it doesn’t necessarily need to be extreme.

And now the SEC gets to show off their win using the same billboards.

Yeah, but these people don't get to billboard investments and securities without acknowledging so.

> Hey, I'm Jake Paul and you should buy crypto X because it's great and I have it

> Hey, I'm Jake Paul and you should buy crypto X because it's great and I was paid for this advertisement.

I mean, that’s the rule he broke, yeah.

That said, I don’t know who Jake Paul is. If he’s a special case, fine. I was going off the other names I do recognize. I just don’t see Lohan hustling securities fraud between ads for clothing and apple jacks.

FTC has mandated "influencer" posts must acknowledge if they're paid for, so why would clothing and apple jacks get a free pass?

And yeah, Logan was a special case because he shilled quite a few coins including a few he was "involved" with.

> So they got suckered into reading an illegal script.

Superrich people have agents and lawyers who should advise better. The near homeless guy I saw at the bus stop touting "crypto" I'd call a sucker. Not Logan Paul.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com