[ibeckermayer]

Fraud is already illegal, and if it's happening then the defrauded parties should take the swindlers to court and prove it, and the justice system should punish them.

The fact that some people might get swindled is not an argument for why I shouldn't be allowed to invest my money how I see fit. Just like the the fact that somebody might sell a defective toothbrush doesn't justify forcing me to get the approval of some bureaucrat in order to buy one.

[alasdair_]

> Fraud is already illegal, and if it's happening then the defrauded parties should take the swindlers to court and prove it, and the justice system should punish them.

Non-accredited investors, by definition, don’t have a lot of money.

If that money is stolen from them via fraud, where does the money to fund the lawsuit come from?

What if the total potential judgement is less than the cost of the court case?

Regulations exist, in part, because legal remedies are incredibly inefficient.

[kosievdmerwe]

Even if you have the money to push the civil suit. There might not be money to recover!

By definition the people you could rightfully sue are misusing the money and likely living it large with it.

[octodog]

That's a nice idea. But here in the real world financial fraud happens and it is frequently not resolved by the courts and the justice system.

[toast0]

> I shouldn't be allowed to invest my money how I see fit.

To my knowledge, the investees only need to ask you if you're an accredited investor, and tell you what that means. They don't need to actually verify that you meet the requirements. If you'ld like to invest in shady things, go right ahead.

[chachachoney]

Verification is necessary. Have you managed to invest in an endeavor which requires accredited investors while not actually meeting requirements yourself?

[kenneth]

This is false. Most offerings are done under 506b which only requires a self-declaration by the investor that he is accredited.