[InefficientRed]

No. Suspects are often arrested on a subset of the criminal charges with which they will ultimately be indicted. Even in more serious crimes like mass shootings, prosecutors will press charges on only a few of the homicide counts at first. This is common practice for prosecutors.

[hailwren]

Well, when they indict on the remaining 18 then we can update our models. Until then, the SEC is only alleging that 7 were securities.

[InefficientRed]

That's a horrible prior.

This isn't about the SEC at all. Arresting on a subset of eventual charges is something that nearly all prosecutors do, and for a large set of very good strategic reasons.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of high-profile cases where the original arrest was based on all possible charges.

[hailwren]

Yeah, I'm not arguing they don't do that. This is one of those cases where arguing the negative without clearly stating your argument makes things easy but not particularly useful.

What argument are you presenting instead? Because he was charged for 7 instances of security fraud we should assume that all 25 are securities fraud? Regardless of whether the SEC eventually charges all 25, they've clearly decided to differentiate them all on some metric (otherwise, they would've charged them all at the same time).

[mannykannot]

True, but your model should already reflect the fact that this is a not an uncommon pattern.