🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@LouisIngenthron Yes but it doesnt matter if you intend to break the law, it matters if you intend to do thing X... thing X is a thing that breaks the law... but your knwoledge of it being illegal isnt the factor, your intent to do it is.

Intending to murder someone is more illegal than accidentally murdering someone. knowing murder is illegal has no effect there that dichotomy is true regardless.

@LouisIngenthron I have never heard of intentionally breaking a law vs accidentally breaking a law making a difference... i guess in sentancing maybe.. i dunno, youd have to ask someone who knows more than me, but I dont think so.... In terms of guilt/innocent im pretty certain it wouldnt matter though... but sentancing i dunno..

I guess you can think of murder right... if you intentionally kill someone its murder, if you accidentally but negligently kill someone its man slaughter... your knowledge of the law wont effect your verdict **at all**... but your intent to murder will effect it.. its just, it doesnt matter if you know murder is illegal or not.

So to bring that back here... getting her to invest that exploits her may not be intentional.. but whether you know exploiting her is illegal or not really wont effect it, what matters is did you intend to exploit her or not.

@LouisIngenthron Well I doubt that.. ignorance of the law is never an excuse... its not the ignorance of the law working in your favor, it is your good vs bad intent... intent is a big part of the law, ignorance of the law doesnt factor in too much, at least not directly.

@LouisIngenthron Yea to be honest I would have expected some exemptions for immediate family.. if there are any neither I nor my friend know about it.

Keep in mind these are just the federal restrictions... state by state restrictions can be even worse.

@LouisIngenthron Comes back to "the totality of the circumstances"... I think its reasonable to say that the sentancing would be harsher if the evidence shows you were intentionally trying to defraud them... for sure. I mean again non-lawyer, but that tracks with what I know and am learning.

@LouisIngenthron Neither me nor my friend would be comfortable saying with any authority... thats just enough detail to need a lawyer to get any meaningful answer..

From what me and my friend are kinda agreeing on (and keep in mind its speculation) is that it depends but i dont think it would count.

Education itslef or any one factor doesnt matter. Courts look at "the totality of the circumstances" as my friend just put it. Basically what this means is you can be a high school dropout, but if you demonstrated you are an expert in other ways, thats fine. But if you have a deggree in business that too may qualify you if everything lines up.

Based on everything im hearing (and my friend agrees).. if, for example, someone works as a secretary in a doctors office, that wouldnt, for example, qualify them to invest in a medical company..

@LouisIngenthron

We are talking as i write this by the way.

I asked about the whole"A sophisticated investor just needs a letter" thing you said.. and he said, its more complicated than that.

It is not your job as an investor to prove they are sophisticated, but if you know they arent it would work against you.

So if you know your aunt well enough and know she never worked in the industry, never invested, and didnt even graduate high school... then even if she lies in a letter and says she is an expert, because you know she isnt you can and probably will be found guilty should that ever go to court.

However if there is plasuable deniablity and the court would find that you had every reason to beleive they were a sophisticated investor and they just lied to you but you had no idea they were lying... then yea, you probably would be fine.

As he put it, you basically just need to show that any "reasonable person" in your situation would conclude the person was a sophisticated investor.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@LouisIngenthron

I just asked my buddy who knows the law better than me (still not legal advice but closer to it than my advice)..

He said rule 504 must still be registered, so it is still prohibitive for most people, thought he sophisticated investor rule would exempt from registration as i mentioned earlier.

Rule 506 is the sophisticated investor rule, 20 while it does, as you say, give you access to sell to up to 35 non-accredited investors they must all qualify as sophisticated.

So seems, at least according to my friends, neither of these rules actually change what I said, they pretty much reinforce what i said but just add some more details...

@admitsWrongIfProven

@LouisIngenthron

And thus why you'd need a lawyer to hash out the details :)

I cant speak to how complete your understanding is... I do know like anything it can get complicated and there are edge cases... If this is an actual issue for you please talk to a lawyer not me. I know enough to know when I need to talk to a lawyer, but even I after years of doing this still wont try to fully understand the law myself.

If you took the money and didnt consult with a lawyer you may get in a lot of trouble later.

@admitsWrongIfProven

@LouisIngenthron

for what its worth you CAN however give your aunt who doesnt know the business shares for free... like they can hold shares, they just cant **buy** shares from you.

This is why you can bring on a partner and give them a cut no matter who they are, so long as they dont have to pay to come on board as a partner (unless they match the other criteria).

@admitsWrongIfProven