> the larceny charges at the heart of the case did not depend on whether the defendants took the money—they did—but whether they were authorized to take it

All these cases show is the very nuanced thing they did wrong, and how to do the same thing within the frameworks available.

The decision making authority and the written latitude available for it. They paid excessive ambigious things.

Very different from selling shares you own at market values and leasing property you own back to the company, and IP trading. This is the fun you see at WeWork.

This was a really interesting case. I agree with the civil rights lawyers who fiercely criticized putting it in front of jurors.