TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

FBI Reportedly Looking Into Angelgate

54 点作者 Cmccann7超过 14 年前

11 条评论

atomical超过 14 年前
This is a great opportunity for McClure to do some product market research and sell products to the bureau.<p>It's rare that such a large organization comes to YOU for a PROBLEM that they are having and not just go DIRECTLY to ya MAMA (or the bank):<p>#1 Take chances. The other guy who didn't got off scotch free with no time serving (web requests, ya twitter stream, nothin!).<p>#2 Hold ya own. Fast talkin ain't just for the guy on the other side of the table. Let him know you have a dictionary and thesaurus too. Don't pull them out so fast though!<p>#3 Haters hate, but you gotta love. If you aren't allowed to leave the room to get coffee suggest a friendly game of thumb wars.
评论 #1728630 未加载
gkoberger超过 14 年前
I feel like this isn't going to go anywhere- after all, you can't prosecute someone based on vague tweets and a witness (Arrington) that felt awkward. It's possibly a few of the "uncomfortable" Angels will step forward with more evidence, but I'm not convinced there's enough evidence to make a real case out of it.<p>But then again, all I really know comes from TechCrunch blog posts.
评论 #1728545 未加载
评论 #1728319 未加载
评论 #1728238 未加载
sublemonic超过 14 年前
From the peHUB post[0] cited in the article: &#62;<i>Arrington declined to say if he had been contacted by law enforcement officials.</i><p>Could law enforcement force Arrington's silence if he <i>was</i> contacted directly? Or can we expect another post by him titled, "So the FBI walked into my office..."?<p>[0] <a href="http://www.pehub.com/83069/angelgate-is-“100-percent-accurate”-says-michael-arrington/" rel="nofollow">http://www.pehub.com/83069/angelgate-is-“100-percent-accurat...</a>
评论 #1728234 未加载
评论 #1728270 未加载
cletus超过 14 年前
I have to plead some ignorance on this one: I'm familiar with Australian securities law (at a very high level) but American securities law is of course quite something else.<p>Price-fixing I'm not sure applies here. It normally applies on the sell side but not the buy side. So if all the gas stations in the country said they would charge $6/gallon that would be price fixing. If all the consumers said they wouldn't pay more than $1.50/gallon then that's not price-fixing in the same sense.<p>But which side the angel investors are treated as is open to interpretation. It's also worth noting that this is investment rather than the sale of goods or services so price-fixing, depending on the law, may not even apply.<p>Collusion is a little more interesting. Australia has very strict laws here compared to the US (to both our benefit and detriment I suspect). I'm not even sure how to begin at unravelling such a thing.<p>It strikes me a little odd that it's the FBI spearheading this. I would've thought the FTC and/or the SEC would've been at the front of this. The FBI means the DoJ doesn't it? Or is the FBI the enforcement arm for these kinds of actions?<p>One disturbing possibility that would require FBI intervention: racketeering. Take a look at RICO:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrup...</a><p>Trigger offences include securities fraud:<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_fraud</a><p>"Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws."<p>Now that normally applies to companies but could it be applied to the enticement of other investors? If angel A puts in money at $3m pre-money while at the same time someone else is putting in money at $4m pre-money, enticed by angel A (without A disclosing his or her better deal), couldn't that qualify as securities fraud?<p>IANAL and it seems unlikely but when you get any securities malfeasance or the appearance thereof the whole thing can really spider in all sorts of unexpected directions.
评论 #1728565 未加载
评论 #1728850 未加载
评论 #1729154 未加载
damncabbage超过 14 年前
I may smack the next journalist that uses the -gate suffix in a title.
评论 #1728389 未加载
评论 #1728380 未加载
fname超过 14 年前
haters gonna hate, players gonna play and the FBI is gonna investigate
bretthellman超过 14 年前
They don't have a choice - it's their job... So what do you think, will the FBI investigation play out to be good or bad for us entrepreneurs?
natch超过 14 年前
If you are a VC who was at those meetings, and you are on your blog loudly claiming nothing illegal was going down, I guess you'll be directly answering all the FBI's questions instead of letting a lawyer do the talking for you, right?<p>I didn't think so.<p>The bad thing is, even if the conversations were innocent, the FBI does not let go easily. Things start nice... "just want to make sure we clear up any misunderstandings..." and then there are wiretaps, and more fun. Good luck.
alexguo超过 14 年前
Evidence for many (maybe most) cases is gathered at the interrogation stage. The larger the group the likelier it is that an investigation involving talking to the people there will uncover everything.<p>www.homadynamic.com
danielnicollet超过 14 年前
Weather or not the investigation will succeed, it will change significantly how reckless angels and VCs have been when it comes to back-room deals and silent partnerships. Time for transparency and thinking before speaking.
davidmurphy超过 14 年前
Good.