Isn’t this called fraud?

  • EdanGrey
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 days ago

    I’m an accountant and auditor, while it’s incredibly misleading, not fraud. They would have to demonstrate to the auditor that the value is correct, it does appear that dividends are being issued so it would probably pass the bar required for valuation.

    • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.alOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 days ago

      I’m not an accountant or auditor, but if this was a person rather than a business, they’d be going to jail

      • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        if this was a person rather than a business,

        Not disagreeing with your point.

        But when you take the idea into consideration.

        This is a business creating a valueless business, then applying artificial value to increase assets So fraud.

        Now your version. A person creates a person. Well not uncommon. But well, everything from there really sounds dodgy.

        It really is not possible to remove the business and be talking about the same thing. And its hard to argue it would not be worse.

        But yeah, I’m sorta having fun with the words. If a poor/working class human tried to increase assets via fraud. They would be spending time at his majesty pleasure.

    • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Something being technically legal doesn’t make it technically OK.

      If I had just started a new job and my CV was found to be “incredibly misleading”, I’d expect to be kicked out the door, not because I’d broken the law or commited gross misconduct, but because I’d been found to be unsuitable for the expectations of the company/customers.

      This story is just another straw on the camels back of the privatised water industry that have been using the British tax payer as an ATM for fat cat shareholders for decades, with debts so huge that our children and our children’s children will be burdened.

      • EdanGrey
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        I didn’t say it was ok, only that it was probably technically fine

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          That’s semantics. I take it you understood the message I was trying to convey.