He took company funds and gambled them. That he won and was able to replace them is immaterial. Martin Shkreli was convicted for misusing company funds even though he made his investors money. It's not "not theft" because you can or do put the money back.
I can't understand how you can't see that.
That $5,000 ($40,000 in today's money) might not have gone very far, but you are very eager to whitewash it because he ended up winning on his gamble, and FedEx has gone on to success. He easily could have lost that bet, and that money could have reimbursed credit card bills for his employees. How that isn't reckless and malfeasance, I don't understand. "We're screwed. I can use the last of this money to try to do something right, or fuck it, I'm going to Vegas!" isn't leadership.
Okay, I don't want to argue about the exact semantics of the word theft and what kinds of "misuse of funds" it includes. Nothing went in his pocket; it wasn't embezzlement.
And Shkreli was moving money between companies and lying to investors, neither of which is relevant here.
More importantly, none of that explains what is sociopathic here.
> He easily could have lost that bet, and that money could have reimbursed credit card bills for his employees.
But would it have been used that way? Or would it have kept propping the company up for a bit longer until total collapse?
> How that isn't reckless and malfeasance, I don't understand. "We're screwed. I can use the last of this money to try to do something right, or fuck it, I'm going to Vegas!" isn't leadership.
I never said it wasn't reckless. But he got the business out of being screwed. If he failed, the business would have gone from screwed to... also screwed. What "do something right" do you have in mind that was so important it becomes sociopathic if he doesn't do it? And it has to be something that would have happened if he didn't gamble, but wouldn't have happened if he lost.
In other words, if your claim is right then there has to be a big human-impacting difference between the "he does nothing" outcome and the "he loses the gamble" outcome. And I'm not really seeing that difference. If both scenarios involve total shutdown and the only difference is a few days, that ain't it.
> I don't want to argue about the exact semantics of the word theft and what kinds of "misuse of funds" it includes. Nothing went in his pocket; it wasn't embezzlement.
See, the law very much disagrees with you here. It went into his pocket, and from there on a card table at Vegas. The moment he had decided to use company money like this, it was taken from its rightful owner.
But the money stayed owned by the company the entire time. He bet it on behalf of the company.
Companies are allowed to make bets on things. And he was high up enough to be able to make that decision.
It went in his pocket, but it would have gone in his pocket if he was going to the office supply store too. That's not an issue.
But none of this explains why it's sociopathic. Most crimes don't rise to that bar. For example, embezzling money from a company that's already guaranteed to collapse and unable to make payroll is generally not sociopathic. Especially if it's some kind of technical embezzlement where you have no personal gain whatsoever.
He took company funds and gambled them. That he won and was able to replace them is immaterial. Martin Shkreli was convicted for misusing company funds even though he made his investors money. It's not "not theft" because you can or do put the money back.
I can't understand how you can't see that.
That $5,000 ($40,000 in today's money) might not have gone very far, but you are very eager to whitewash it because he ended up winning on his gamble, and FedEx has gone on to success. He easily could have lost that bet, and that money could have reimbursed credit card bills for his employees. How that isn't reckless and malfeasance, I don't understand. "We're screwed. I can use the last of this money to try to do something right, or fuck it, I'm going to Vegas!" isn't leadership.