How that could be argued that you are intentionally promoting pump and dumps is extremely exaggerated. It's simple marketing - like any company in the world would do.
I think it's pretty much intentionally promoting.
Which would invoke assumed responsibilities of the actus reus principle. I think that would be fairly easy to sell to a jury at 51% burden of proof. Especially if there is a pattern of these IHUB promotions tanking/being dumped into by CD's.504's ect. Probably lawyers standing in line to take the case.
With regard to the actus reus principle, courts approving vicarious liability often contend that defendants voluntarily "assumed the responsibilities" the statutes imposed or had it within their power to prevent the crimes in question (see Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 256 (1952)).
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
