Comment by dspillett

> I'm curious when it crossed the line into "fraud" here.

Fraud is often defined as gaining something (or depriving someone else from something, or both) via false pretences. Here the something is money (this is most commonly the case) and the gaining/depriving is gaining money and depriving investors of it. It is more complicated than that, with many things that fit this simple description not legally being considered fraud (though perhaps being considered another crime), and can vary a fair bit between legal jurisdictions.

A cynical thought is that the key line being crossed here is that the victims are well-off investors, if you or I were conned similarly the law might give less of a stuff because we can't afford the legal team that these investors have. This is why cases like this one are successful, but companies feel safe conning their customers (i.e. selling an “unlimited” service that has, or developers five minutes after signing up, significant limits). Most investors wouldn't agree to the forced arbitration clauses and other crap that we routinely agree to by not reading and subsequently not accepting the Ts & Cs, etc, and anyway can afford large, capable, legal resources where our only hope would be a class-action from which only the lawyers really benefit.

Another cynical thought is that the line crosses was the act of not being successful. I'm sure the investors wouldn't have cared about the fraud if the returns had been very good.