The Ministry of Justice's investigation on Elon Musk is unprecedented

And then, was it true? An August 13 article in the Tesla newspaper said that although Musk played a leading role in funding, "secure" may not accurately describe the situation. "The sovereign fund of Saudi Arabia has approached me several times about the privatization of Tesla," he said. And this fund "has more than enough capital to execute such a transaction". Musk had another meeting with the general manager of the Saudi fund on July 31. "I left the meeting of July 31 undoubtedly that an agreement with the Saudi Sovereign Fund could be closed, and that it was just a matter of moving the process forward", wrote Musk. "That's why I talked about" secured financing "in the August 7 announcement." (Since the position, stocks have fallen more than 62 points, or 18%).

The only question is therefore whether the use of "secure" by Musk was false or misleading. I am not a lawyer, but … the simple reading of "in custody or on guard" or "of course; certain; assured "does not seem to fit the situation described by Musk in his blog post.

Elon Musk and the meaning of "off the record"

In any case, analysts covering the action have seriously considered the tweet as "statements declarative of the CEO of a public company that we believe should be considered seriously," wrote JPMorgan. "Financing is guaranteed or not, and the Tesla CEO says the funding is secure." Bank of America agreed, "In the end, we see today's announcement as having substance."

Evercore has made the most detailed statement of his interpretation. "Our view is that" guaranteed funding "should be interpreted as a strong verbal commitment, with funds available and parts ready to execute quickly," they wrote. "However, it could be less than that. It is also possible that initial legal documents, condition sheets, letters of intent have been signed. "

As it turned out, he was less than that, and Musk abandoned the plan in a few weeks.

But that's the letter of the law. There is also the reality of judicial proceedings. In the rare cases where white-collar crimes have been prosecuted, the subterfuge has been much more than that.

The Department of Justice has initiated criminal proceedings against some CEOs for fraud and market manipulation, but in these cases the CEOS in question has put in place complex multi-year programs. For example, Terry Kretz of Hanover Financial launched a ponzi program. Michael Baker of ArthroCare prepared the company's books with the help of the company's distributors. Gilbert Lundstrom of TierOne Bank has hidden tens of millions of dollars of losses to investors.

The DOJ complained in a case related to Twitter, a Scottish investor who, according to the agency, tweeted fake news about a company and traded on price cuts. It's not exactly the same, but it's in the same galaxy, I suppose.

The fact is that no one has ever done anything like Musk. And while investors are struggling to cope, regulators too, who can read the letter of the law as well as anyone.

And of course, even if the DOJ and the SEC do nothing, Tesla is already facing multiple lawsuits during the tweet.