You are forgetting something, I'm not an employee of CM, I'm an EX employee.

I'm not forgetting that. I even deliberately pointed it out, in fact. Which would probably concern the investors if an ex-employee had more information on an embezzlement charge than they did. You know, if it was embezzlement.

Which is yet to be established, I add.

For if I am to believe that she put money into a ponzi scheme with CM money just based on stupidity, you must think I'm an idiot.

At this point, I think there's little doubt of that, but if you reread that messy imgur link you so kindly provided, you'll note that she stated that effectively taking money she had for some kind of contracted effort to try and cover what she'd already spent was "officially a ponzi at this point." That's not admission of being in a Ponzi scheme, that's creative license and parallelism.

Maybe reading comprehension is different in other places. I'm starting to wonder.

Under what circumstances would one spend company money without consent to a shifty enterprise without telling management.

Well, first you'd have to establish that what was spent was "company money." Again, assertion with facts not in evidence. And then you'd need to provide proof of involvement in a shifty enterprise rather than fiscal mismanagement beyond an off-hand linguistic parallelism.

And then I'd have to ask seriously about CM's fiscal mismanagement and what funds were supposedly spent and how they were out of direct corporate control in the first place. Followed by inquiring about why instead of being clear and direct about what they assert was done in the first place, stating times and places, and getting on criminal investigation with relevant authorities over "tens of thousands of dollars" instead of sideswipe smears and implication.

You know, as if they were a real company which was out tens of thousands of dollars to embezzlement.

In fact, this evidence is so blatant in my view that I believe you are protecting a criminal.

Cool. My first defense case. I'm clearly doing a better job than CM's lawyers, so I have a fine future in international law.

But let's just say Lori is just dumb, you are still defending her. What gives? Surely a man with morals would not stick up for someone that destroyed wealth.

What makes you think I'm a man with morals? That's the opposite of everything I represent in life. You're trying to make a moral appeal to me. I do love that so. Like trying to appeal to the better judgement of a grizzly bear.

It's adorable.

Even if she had NOT stolen the funds, I absolutely believe it is personally reasonable to alert others of potential threats or stupidity. For if she was to start this business, she would destroy more wealth, and that would be on you for protecting her.

Well, here's part of the difference: I've had a conversation with her. You, I don't know and don't care about, but you and CM are apparently comfortable wandering through on a public blockchain where everything you write is eternal so long as one server node is running and dropping unsupported, poorly reasoned assertions about someone's asserted criminal activities which, conveniently, won't be prosecuted. And when called on it, you make more unsupported assertions, double down on lying, pretend it went unnoticed, and continue slinging shit.

I have to say, it's incredibly entertaining.

But let's assume I agree with you. "Even if she had NOT stolen the funds, I absolutely believe it is personally reasonable to alert others of potential threats or stupidity." Like Core Media, for giving an international employee access to, supposedly, tens of thousands of dollars alternately in cash or in corporate accounts which could be spent without countersign from another corporate officer and which, by the only evidence you've provided, were paid to her and not to a corporate account? The phrasing is always "to me," not "to the company," after all.

I certainly wouldn't invest in Lori's business, despite the fact I like her on a personal level. You'd have to be a raving imbecile to invest in anything having to do with cryptocurrency or fintech at this point, and I'm many things but "raving imbecile" isn't on the list. So whatever other people choose to do, it's definitely not on me.

But by your argument, letting Core Media continue to do business would also be on me, given that by their own admission they have terrible business acumen and judgement of people. Further, an investor would have to be a raving imbecile to put money into a company that is self-confessed to losing tens of thousands of dollars from clients and not pursuing it.

It's a good thing for them I'm lazy and really don't care that much, eh? Or I might feel compelled to hunt down their investor lists and contact them with an eloquent summary of events with a gentle reminder that CM directors would be liable for losses directly under Australian law.

Likewise it's a good thing I don't take your judgement seriously or I might be motivated to do such a thing. Madness. Crazy, even.

Don't worry, I enjoy schadenfreude and sadism too much to bother.

In a sense, CM was right about one thing. This sort of action makes everyone involved in the shenanigans look bad. Unfortunately for them, they just went out of their way to draw attention to it and made themselves look worse while admitting legal culpability. In an effectively eternal medium that can never be erased.

I'm sure your friends who still work there will thank you for that.

As for me, if anything, and if I cared, I could rest easy knowing that if anyone ever noticed this thread and likewise cared, they might be spared a poor investment. So despite my best efforts, I might accidently do good.

Thanks for that.