// Elements a prosecutor would need to prove
- A material misrepresentation or omission.
- Scienter — intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud (or recklessness).
- A connection with the purchase or sale of a security.
- Reliance by the investor.
- Economic loss.
- Loss causation — the misrepresentation caused the loss.
// What the platform's records tend to support
- Public statements to investors that contradict contemporaneous internal documents (climate denial, product safety, financial outlook).
- Forward-looking statements that conflict with simultaneously known facts.
- Patterns of disclosed-only-after-the-fact material risk factors.
// What public records cannot prove on their own
- Scienter without internal communications subpoenaed in discovery.
- Specific reliance by individual investors.
// Leading cases
Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988)
Established materiality standard and fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance.
Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, 573 U.S. 258 (2014)
Refined fraud-on-the-market; preserved Basic's holding.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, 601 U.S. 257 (2024)
Pure omissions are not actionable under 10b-5 absent a duty to disclose.
Reminder. This is an analytical mapping, not an indictment. Determinations of guilt require grand juries, indictments, trials, and proof beyond reasonable doubt — none of which a public OSINT site can substitute for. Use this map the way an ethics watchdog or investigative journalist would: as a framework for asking the right questions of the records that already exist.
GOBLIN HOUSE
[ Enter Database → ]