"Newman is said to have lured investors by misrepresenting his own ability to pay back funds, [...] He then used the funds to pad his own finances or pay back earlier investors."
What? Why would you pay investors #1 back if you were planning to screw investors #2? Or was he planning to just take ever bigger gambles?
Even if he's innocent, I found his lawyer's statement quirky:
"All of his business ventures have been legitimate and well-intentioned.
While his ventures were not always as successful as he hoped they would
be, he never did anything to justify the over-reaching charges issued against
him today.["]
3 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 17.2 ms ] threadWhat? Why would you pay investors #1 back if you were planning to screw investors #2? Or was he planning to just take ever bigger gambles?