RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Allegations by AMFdevelopbc wrote: You are making a comparison of incredible fraud cases whereas in Pyrogenesis case the CEO is alleged conflict of interest and improper discloser. Maximum exposure of $550k to the company has been stated and very worse case scenarios in stepping down as director or officer.
You need to be very careful of posting these things of massive fraud as some sort of parallel in ANY way to PyroGenesis.
But of course you only post negative bash ONLY.
Long and strong PYROGENESIS!
Thank you so much for your advice, but You have either missed my point, or are committing a logical “straw man” fallacy in which you are trying to alter the point making in an argument rather than focus on the actual argument. It’s interesting, how I found on my time on these boards how this is a common attempt in which the strawman fallacy provides a counterargument has no substance and aims to attack an untrue version of what was meant. I guess that’s the policy though, smoke and mirrors, confused, distracted, change the topic to avoid discussion of the facts.
I did not make a generalization as you were suggesting, but in fact, I raised a questio, and I will restate here for accuracy
How reliable are statements OF innocence by those being accused of fraud or white-collar crimes?
Are used examples of fraud, not reliant on the size of the fraud bit more reliant on the response of those being accused. I also provided a link to a study supported by the SEC reviewed by a sample of 30 convicted white collar offenders, focusing specifically on techniques they used to deny their criminality and on how they accounted for their adjudication as criminals.
‘Accounts of offenders took two general forms, justifications and excuses. Accounts shed light on motive neutralizations and vocabularies, illustrated underlying assumptions about what constituted culpable criminality versus acceptable illegalities, and demonstrated that some offenders were more successful than others in minimizing sanctions they received by virtue of the sufficiency of their accounts. The most consistent and recurrent pattern in interviews was denial of criminal intent, as opposed to the outright denial of any criminal behavior whatsoever.’https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/denying-guilty-mind-accounting-involvement-white-collar-crime
So, your comments make little sense
Also, to add to that, you have miss stated the significance of the allegation of the AMF. Given that 45% of the company approximately is owned by one of the directors that is being sued, and given that the financing most recently was largely supported by him, I would think that removing him as CEO and give him such a significant fine is more significant than you are suggesting. After all, read about what the alligation actually is in the potentially outcome.
The AMF alleges that Mr. Pascali was in breach of section 199.1(2) of the Securities Act (Qubec), that Mr. Pascali and the Company made misrepresentations in breach of sections 196 and 197 of the Securities Act (Qubec), that Mr. Pascali and the Company failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations under applicable securities legislation, and that Mr. Pascali and Mr. Curleigh failed to comply with their fiduciary duties as directors of the Company. The AMF is seeking administrative penalties totaling $4.20 million against Mr. Pascali, and a disgorgement order of $9.57 million to the AMF also from Mr. Pascali. The AMF is also seeking administrative penalties totaling $550,000 against the Company. Separately, the AMF is also seeking orders prohibiting Mr. Pascali and Mr. Curleigh to act as an officer or director of a reporting issuer for 5 years.’
note also, that my posts are meant to clarify, and provide facts where people are trying to cherry pics, and indicate that the seriousness of the crimes and the potential of the AMF to be successful, or other than what they may be in my opinion