Interestingly put. There may be no way to prevent his taking it for such(and I would laugh if he actually did), but there are certainly avenues of ways he, and those who continue to help him perpetuate the fraud for such purposes, can be held accountable there after.
Pan'Theon: Rise' of th'e Fal'Len - #1 Thread in MMO
- Thread starter gogojira_sl
- Start date
Unless the $45k was needed to pay taxes... Like property taxes. Best way to keep the IRS off your back is to keep them paid up and everything looking on the up and up.Your point has seemingly floated more than once from the emphasis on the KS to now this, which is fine, though a bit confusing.
Supposedly, Brad incorporated the company at the start of April. Website pledges to it thus would not face taxation, by my understanding, until the next tax year assessment would it not?
So this "missing money" point seeming to be made (Remember its primarily accounted for via the admitting by Brad of his taking it(though he has changed the explanation for it multiple times(advanced pay vs back payas being taken for taxation -wouldn't- be relevant.
Or are you trying to make yet a different point that Im may not be seeing?
The reason for taking the money as I pointed out a few pages back isn't relevant either. Misappropriation isnt mitigated by "well I wanted to pay off my property taxes on my houses" 
.
.legally Misappropriation means something. otherwise it's called balancing your checkbook.The reason for taking the money as I pointed out a few pages back isn't relevant either. Misappropriation isnt mitigated by "well I wanted to pay off my property taxes on my houses"
Let's look then at a few explanations of such misappropriation:
Embezzlement involves taking property that you already possess, but do not own. With embezzlement, a person who is entrusted to manage or control someone else's property(or that of a corporate entity) uses that property inappropriately, and to the person's own benefit. An employee who uses company property for his personal projects commits embezzlement. Embezzlement can encompass both money and other forms of property.
Misappropriation.Misappropriation of funds is embezzlement of money only. For example, the treasurer of a club who diverts club funds to his own bank account has both embezzled and misappropriated the money.
When prosecutors bring a charge of misappropriation, they must convince a judge or jury that the following happened or is true:
Control but not ownership.The prosecutor must show that the owner of the property, whether it's a person, organization, or group, entrusted or gave the money to the defendant, or otherwise allowed the defendant control over it. In short, the defendant rightfully had possession, but not ownership.
Intent.First, a person must knowingly misappropriate the money, and cannot commit the crime by making a mistake or error. A person who misappropriates funds doesn't have to intend to actually physically take the money. It can be enough for a prosecutor to show that the accused intended to take any action that results (or would likely result) in the misappropriation of funds. In some states, the accused must know the action is illegal; while in others, the accused only has to act intentionally and does not need to know that the conduct is criminal(I believe the second applies to California criminal code but I'd need to check to be sure).
Conversion.In order to commit misappropriation of funds, a person must not only take the money but must use it for his own purposes. However, this doesn't require that the accused actually take the money and use it to buy something or otherwise spend it. Courts have held it's enough to transfer the money to a bank account or even to refuse or fail to hand over the owner's money when the owner demands it.
Return.A person who misappropriates funds with the intent to later return the money to the rightful owner is still guilty of misappropriation. It also doesn't matter if the misappropriation only lasted for a short amount of time.
Pick which one fits Brad's misappropriation of the funds:
A. Taking 45k or more from the project there by crippling it and declaring at the time, that the project was on hold.
B. Taking 45k+ with statements that it was for a pay advance of 5 months.
C. Taking 45k+ and making statements concerning said advance that it would be "paid back", implying that they shouldn't have taken it.
D. Taking 45k+ and declaring this week that it was for back pay (thus under false pretenses with statement B) and not addressing previous statements of the why's contrary to this previously.
E. Taking 45k+ without using officially cutting a payroll check for the money taken as required by incorporated companies.
F. A mix of some of the above.
G. All of the above.
Control but not ownership.The prosecutor must show that the owner of the property, whether it's a person, organization, or group, entrusted or gave the money to the defendant, or otherwise allowed the defendant control over it. In short, the defendant rightfully had possession, but not ownership.
care to ponder who the owner of the property was? all of your statements would be correct if VRI was a public corporation.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,549
- 7,854
Stop using legal jargon you have limited to no understanding of. You are not proving your point. You are making yourself sound absurd.
So glad you brought this up(could say I led you into asking about it, hehe).
Company was incorporated. Private or public doesn't matter in that regard.
If a sole proprietor issues a bunch of checks on his business account to cash, there is no embezzlement there no matter what he does with the cash because he's the owner of it; there is no theft occurring here.
Similarly, if the sole shareholder of a corporation is also its president and and in his role as president he issues a whole bunch of corporate checks to cash, it won't matter what he did with the cash because there is no theft here. The president has the (at least implicit) permission of the owner--himself--for the use of the cash therefore no embezzlement.
In both cases, what he did with the cash might trigger other criminal or civil issues for him, however.(A)
If there are other owners of the business, however, then there certainly can be an issue of embezzlement if the use of the cash was not for the benefit of the business or all it's owners.(B)
...
Since Brad, again, admitted that he gave the original dev team folks stock options up to the time of this misappropriation, be they contract workers or not, he was not the sole proprietor. He thus is hit with(B).
If he comes back and tries to say that never happened(again he's stated he did more than once), then he'll get shifted to(A).
Hehe, I can just go back to saying the fucker is a shyster and be content with that.
I like the way you think, your argument centers around the issuance of stock. legally stock in a private company may not be recognized until the C-Corp is formed because on paper there is no company. this is why the timeline becomes very important between the dev teams departure and the actual corporation filing. VRI did not exist legally until 4/14 ...therefore Founder Stock could not be issued, and would not legally be recognized.
sure VRI did exist, but not as a public or private corporation, and there did not have the same legal responsibilities and benefits that those companies enjoy until 4/1/14
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,549
- 7,854
Blazin
Creative Title
- 6,412
- 33,663
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,756
- 213,098
yes, but please lets not start this argument. having quaid gargle brad's manjuice is bad enough without me explaining why i have used chuk now for 20+ years online.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,549
- 7,854
That's tricky on one hand. If written contractual statements of those stock options were made prior to the incorporation, it can be argued that they are still binding post the incorporation depending on the language of the agreement(or ambiguity there of). On another hand the inception of the company and the timing of the departures of former devs post that point would also make it binding. All it takes is just one to have not left by that inception to have that considered.
That would be an interesting precedent to argue the merits of. Not all who funded it though were considered an "apprentice developer". They had to invest at a certain amount level to be so. I wonder though if additionally one could argue the whole in regards that. But all in all stock options were not part of that so the stock point would be moot and Brad would attempt to argue they were simply "volunteer contractual employees" with no proprietorship.
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,549
- 7,854
