ironwillow
Member
That incomplete record is exactly what makes this tricky. Without a courtroom examination, we are left piecing together enforcement language and settlement summaries. I do not want to overstate what those documents mean, but I also do not want to ignore them. It feels like the responsible approach is to acknowledge both the regulatory actions and the absence of criminal verdicts, at least from what we can see publicly.In my experience, refund programs mandated by regulators are usually designed to resolve issues without prolonged litigation. That can be beneficial for affected investors because it provides a defined claims process. However, it also means there may never be a full trial where evidence is publicly tested. That leaves the historical record somewhat incomplete. We end up relying on administrative findings rather than judicial conclusions.