Actually, that's a perfectly legitimate question, given that if a charge of fraud were ever to be brought in an American criminal court the level of evidence would need to clear the bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt", requiring that jurors be "firmly convinced" of guilt based on reason and common sense, leaving no reasonable alternative explanation [per Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute].WR4N wrote: Sun Jan 25, 2026 10:42 pm .
.
I pose a question - posed to me - that I am unable to answer: Can anyone provide a remotely possible conclusion … other than intentional deceit and fraudulent business activities? The appearance (I stress - the “appearance”) is that none of this is merely logistics issues.
This is not an accusation - it is merely a question.
So your specific question, "can anyone provide a remotely possible conclusion … other than intentional deceit and fraudulent business activities" is exactly what a court would look to the defense attorney to answer.