Replies to post #233478 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[Bluefang]

Dig: Yes, I get your point--but, were we not discussing sincerity at Wave?

It seems to me your last post made my point about the lack of sincerity in Wave's business dealings, especially with investors.

Wave mgt deceives shareholders about the true nature of their 'business,' in order to make money for themselves by selling shares to people who believe their lies about coming prosperity.

Does that not perfectly fit the definition of insincerity?

What separates insincerity from fraud? A very thin line, IMO. And, I would add, it is a line Wave mgt has crossed more than once.

And, less we end up in another round-robin debate about definitions, let me give you one from Wiki: "In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain"

Here is a further citation from a legal dictionary you may find of interest on this subject:

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Here is the proof required:

"Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud."

____________

Surely, you have another and different opinion.

Blue







So in this publicly traded company, the management intentionally lies to investors and shareholders in order to sell more shares, so they can continue to profit. Business as usual? Or outright fraud?

Blue

[barge]

Dig space---Stating the obvious is an uncanny talent. You write: "It seems they believe unbridled optimism sells more shares than explaining misses. I think they think that at some point they will be successful .... as long as they can sell enough shares to get there ...."