I don’t understand the premise of your statement as it relates to my post, would a shareholder’s embarrassment nullify the law in your opinion?
The rules of the market require a certain level of transparency related to a company’s promoted intent. Allowing this situation to go without an investigation will set a precedent of bait and switch tweeting throughout the entire OTC. I don’t see David Lazar, George Sharp promoting their intent and not following through. They appear to either not speak at all (Lazar) or say up front what negative parameters they could find in a custodianship (Sharp). Krisa/SSM promoted itself as transparent, and yet was the opposite of transparent at the last moments of the custodial process (bait and switch). They did it again with FBCD when switching the “merger ready when pink” to “we have 3 companies we are negotiating with”. The crimes will go on and on until the authorities realize the methods of the scam. Go to any car dealership and get upsold on a car, same exact scam.
What is Krisa/SSM relying on to avoid an investigation in this instance?
1. Cult-like behavior of its investors not to question their beloved “company savior”,
2. Authorities being distracted by the September 28 rule and all the work going into that
3. The ongoing distraction of covid
4. Overall general ignorance of most people to be able to explain in writing what occurred and what is unlawful about the occurrence.
Better to be like Lazar as a custodian and say nothing than commit crimes via promoted intent. All imo.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
