View Single Post
Guest | Posts: n/a | Thanked: 0 times | Joined on
#4747
Originally Posted by att View Post
I don't think the requirements for embezzlement come true in this case, in Finnish or USA laws. The terms of Indiegogo say:



Jolla is the owner of that money when Indiegogo paid it to them and they can use it for whatever they want. Because Jolla offered perks they have an obligation to deliver those so there is a contract dispute if they don't deliver, no embezzlement.
if you do believe that they can do anything with money, how do you then explain this: (also from IGG terms of use)

If a Campaign Owner is unable to perform on any promise and/or commitment to Contributors, the Campaign Owner will work with the Contributors to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution, which may include the issuance of a refund of Contributions by the Campaign Owner.

they either need to fulfill their duties, or they need to issue a full refund by contributors request.
What Jolla did and offered is not even legal.

Oh, btw. The word that some of Jolla hardcore fans like to use "investment", do fully understand the meaning of embezzlement. If you "invest" into something and that money is used into totally different thing what is not agreed, it is called embezzlement.

So which one is it? investment or financing the product that needs to be delivered (buying a product)?