[jacquesm]

The context we're talking about here: acquisition or investment there is a duty to research and a duty to inform, the two should theoretically meet in the middle, there is always some give and take but that's the basic idea. Failing your duty to inform is very close to fraud and in many cases crosses right over into fraud. This can get you in very hot water depending on the jurisdiction and the willingness of the counterparty to sue. Typically such cases are settled out of court, the settlements are usually not small and could easily cost you control of the company.

Most parties are aware of this and will do their very best to avoid going down that road, the few idiots that don't usually end up in a bad way though some may get lucky.

[FpUser]

>"Failing your duty to inform is very close to fraud and in many cases crosses right over into fraud."

Cutting down the fluff you've just confirmed what I said. Basically when it does not cross into legal criminal fraud as defined by law you can't call it a fraud. Same as with taxes, especially corporate. One can be and idiot, creative, fraudster. The middle one is subject to interpretation and the amount of money involved. "Doing very best" does not necessarily mean not lying.

[jacquesm]

I can call it whatever I want. Whether a judge will agree with that is another matter, but the common layperson's definition of fraud is not the same as the legal one that could lead to a criminal conviction, if only because they both have a different standard for evidence. Splitting legal hairs is what may make you decide to pursue a fraud case or letting one go, doesn't mean that it wasn't fraud.

You can see this happen every day, plenty of cases that are fairly obviously - to a layperson - fraud end up not being prosecuted because it is hard to prove the facts and then there is the matter of intent. Still, nobody is fooled.