[unknown_apostle]

It's amazing how some people are so optimistic and self-confident that they are simply incapable of learning. Reis kept going for "easy money" and risky ventures until the end. Complete lack of moral character aside, he apparently never accepted that, given the way in which he approached things by cutting all sorts of corners, the fallout from his failing schemes kept destroying the gains from his successful schemes, both for himself and for others.

[thematrixturtle]

Really? If he was a (legit) serial entrepreneur we'd be lauding him for his grit here on HN. And he almost pulled off his final "fake it till you make it" unicorn scheme too: if he had wrested control over the Bank of Portugal, he could have retroactively legitimized everything he did.

[unknown_apostle]

First, at least his big scheme wasn't "fake it till you make it"; it was explicitly and intentionally criminal from the beginning.

Second, I doubt whether serial delusions of grandeur would be unanimously lauded on HN.

[vmception]

If he got the central bank I would find it very amusing

He would just need to stop there and focus on managing the central bank instead of A&M bank

Although A&M bank could have become one of the most respected investment banks given its connection.

Almost all of which have similar origins (and ongoing operations) in something lucrative and unsavory.

So you either win or you lose. He lost after being so close to winning. My lack of admonishment comes from my main observation that he could have stopped before starting A&M bank and been indistinguishable from any other well off person. He was a respected business leader at the time.

[plafl]

He got 2/3 of the shares necessary for gaining control. The Bank of Portugal was the only one who could prosecute money forgery and it was being acquired with forged money. This guy was a hacker.

I doubt he would have succeeded nevertheless. In the end the law was changed to apply to him retroactively, which was unconstitutional (and I'm sure it's still unconstitutional on most parts of the world), and that only to give him more sentence time. He would have been removed from the bank, one way or another.

[vmception]

When looking at other large investment banks, I think he would have succeeded

Whether it was HSBC’s opium trading

Or JP Morgan Chase’s fraudulent securities offering for a water company that decided to operate as a bank

There are lots of examples of maneuvering towards legal legitimacy

It really just depends on where your ambitions lie and what consequences you are willing to risk.

(note: all those banks are now results of many mergers and hardly represent their oldest branches)