Quote from: scr3u.ucr3trs on August 17, 2014, 02:49:00 AM

You obviously didn't read the transcripts. The money paid to the other company was for engineering work done for the IP that is supposedly worth $30M according to Simon and worth almost nothing according to Monica. The fact is the company just did the two company model to hold the IP and move dollars back and forth. It wasn't even kept right in the accounting per the testimony and had no stealing of assets involved - that just shows how illiterate you are with basic accounting.

However it is sinful that raises were given to employees who had only been with the company months, some of them big so I do agree with you on that point. Its probably criminal.

I would think my accounting background is better than yours. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. I feel pretty secure about my understanding of what you can and cannot do in business.
How can you transfer an asset to another company that has value and not receive a payment?
Ask the IRS that. I cannot just "gift" assets to companies that are related let alone companies that are "independent" of each other.
The IP cannot get from CA to delaware without a market based payment. The CA company CANNOT make payments from their revenue to pay for assets that are owned by another company. Really? You think it is that easy to dodge taxes and embezzle assets from a company? Where did you go to business/law school? That is patently ridiculous.

Maybe I can make it simpler for you. You start company A. You collect $20M from people in exchange for a promise to deliver something. You buy gold/a house/a boat or even a llama with $6M of the money. You declare the asset as worthless and you transfer it to company B for free. Do you think this is legal? Hint: it is not.
Then you charge company A $85,000 per month for the use of the asset that Company B never paid for. hmmm. Kind of makes your transfer price look like embezzlement doesn't it?
Do you understand?
The raises are not "criminal". Where did you get that idea? But, it does make it far easier to argue that all pay to EVERY shareholder of the company while it was undercapitalized could be recalled by the estate.