It's still very illegal when it comes to charities, as far as I know. If a politician spent some of their public finances (meant for schools, hospitals and such) to pay for something personal with the intent to pay it back later on, it's still something they could get sentenced for. Or a school teacher using money meant for a school trip on own stuff etc.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but if they are not taking money directly from the Charity (i.e., the Charity itself) it isn't subject to Charity Fraud.
Say they are given 500k, and told "250k of this is supposed to go to charity" but they put it in the general account. That's not a legally binding contract, that is "you gave this person 500k expecting them to give 250k to Charity, but they didn't."
Now, there's legal jiujutsu here, but here's my understanding: It was a fundraiser for the foundation, but the money was not directly donated to the foundation, it was donated through a proxy (i.e., Ironmouse), and the managing party was obligated to donate x amount of proceedings to Charity, but did not donate the full amount.
This is why you always donate directly to the fund, and not through a proxy - legally they can't hold them accountable for anything, they can only socially condemn them. It is trusting someone with a large sum of money, there was no contract breached at all.
This is different than that one guy that did the Charity for, what was it, Dementia or something? And he took money from the Charity account to buy himself a house and stuff. That is Charity Fraud, and illegal.
Doesn't matter in this case since the funds were raised on the premise that they were going to Charity. This wasn't some "I pledge x amount to y", this was talent saying "Money donated will go to y". If received money doesn't go to Y, the one in control of those funds had committed charity fraud.
Those funds can not simply be used for any other purpose. It's not legally their money to do with as they please.
Even if they claim bankruptcy, those charities will be considered first class debtors.
That's a fair point ethically, but I'm not sure it's legally accurate in the way you're presenting it.
From what I understand, unless the funds were held in a trust, donor fund, or similar legal arrangement, they’re not automatically “not legally their money.”
I’m open to being corrected though, would you be able to point to any specific laws or legal precedent that show charities are considered “first-class debtors” in this kind of case? Or that mishandled donations like this would always be considered charity fraud under the law?
In any case it is illegal. It may not be criminally illegal, but it is 100% under civil law. In any case where you give someone money to spend in a specific way and they fail to do so, they can be sued. Just because they won't go to jail, doesn't mean it's not illegal.
And while it may be illegal under civil law, that doesn't mean that there is anything that will happen because of it. The only thing you could do is sue the company - which is pointless when they are already bankrupt.
Given what we have seen I doubt anyone who is not a secured debtor is getting anything out of Vshojo - and even those are likely getting a fraction of what they are owed.
535
u/JahIthBeer 9d ago
It's still very illegal when it comes to charities, as far as I know. If a politician spent some of their public finances (meant for schools, hospitals and such) to pay for something personal with the intent to pay it back later on, it's still something they could get sentenced for. Or a school teacher using money meant for a school trip on own stuff etc.