' Semantics ' is the best way to describe the irreconcilable differences on this topic .
Permit me to add my 40 % of a nickel .
Circumstantial evidence of means and opportunity can be used for conviction when that circumstantial evidence is logically deducted , sequentially collated , and is overwhelming .
If the allegations against Monsieur Matt were ONLY about message board manipulation and / or tampering in his role as I-HUB's founding Administrator then the allegations that he participated in the pump and dump schemes under other aliases or that he facilitated the pump and dump schemes through indirect tactics would be circumstantial and inconclusive that a crime had been committed by Matt .
However , since the Authorities have identified 24 Hong Kong
Bank Accounts in Matt's name with a lot of money on deposit in those accounts , and the Authorities have intercepted internet transmissions of the conspiracies to defraud investors , and they have substantially more TANGIBLE evidences of Matt's complicity in the ' pump and dump schemes ' , then it could be logically , sequentially , and overwhelmingly assumed that Matt likely used I-HUB to facilitate those schemes , even if the only evidence of I-HUB interference and manipulation by Matt was to be only circumstantial .
Semantics ....YES , but the incontrovertible evidences of the PROCEEDS of Matt's alleged crimes and other tangible evidence of crimes being committed by Matt supports the argument that Matt's means and opportunity to obtain those proceeds were through I-HUB message board interference and manipulation(s) .
And that circumstantial evidence MAY be enough for the SEC to successfully argue that the Court should enjoin and restrain Matt from further ' means and opportunity ' as I-HUB Administrator .
Renee
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
