Re: GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)
Well that's a crappy conclusion after all these years. 
Quite surprised to read the primary angle of attack was the classification of the "instruments". Securities or not securities. What bearing does that have on what was thought to be the main and single contention that Uncle Stu ran or had input to run the entire operation?
Unless the article reconfigured the verdict to highlight the securities aspect. But if that was the primary angle of attack it seems to me to be irrelevant and probably harder to prove than just that Uncle Stu had input into the running of the scam.
They "also" found:
The customers alleged all four of the products — Hashlets, Hashpoints, Paycoin and HashStakers — were unregistered securities, and that Fraser was liable for the sales because his role at the companies was comparable to that of a partner or director.
But the jury disagreed, finding none of the products were securities, not even Hashlets, which the SEC described as a security in its case against Garza. Weiner said the defense had argued, apparently convincingly, that Hashlets were not a passive investment and that customers actively controlled their investment.
The jury also found Fraser didn't aid in any common law fraud that may have been committed by GAW Miners. Fraser had argued he too had been a victim of the scheme, losing roughly $12 million, and that he didn't have decision-making power over the operations.
Quite surprised to read the primary angle of attack was the classification of the "instruments". Securities or not securities. What bearing does that have on what was thought to be the main and single contention that Uncle Stu ran or had input to run the entire operation?
Unless the article reconfigured the verdict to highlight the securities aspect. But if that was the primary angle of attack it seems to me to be irrelevant and probably harder to prove than just that Uncle Stu had input into the running of the scam.
They "also" found:
The customers alleged all four of the products — Hashlets, Hashpoints, Paycoin and HashStakers — were unregistered securities, and that Fraser was liable for the sales because his role at the companies was comparable to that of a partner or director.
But the jury disagreed, finding none of the products were securities, not even Hashlets, which the SEC described as a security in its case against Garza. Weiner said the defense had argued, apparently convincingly, that Hashlets were not a passive investment and that customers actively controlled their investment.
The jury also found Fraser didn't aid in any common law fraud that may have been committed by GAW Miners. Fraser had argued he too had been a victim of the scheme, losing roughly $12 million, and that he didn't have decision-making power over the operations.