..., telling the clients that he had invested their money in bonds or taking it without permission

< Previous | Next >

Leafka

Senior Member
Polish
Hi,

Is it clear that it (in bold in the text) means money? The text is my own.

In November 2015, a former XYZ (= company name) investment adviser pleaded guilty to embezzlement and securities fraud. Reportedly, between 2008 and 2015 he stole about USD 22 million from his clients' funds, telling the clients that he had invested their money in low-risk municipal bonds or taking it without their permission.
 
  • Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    I think it's clear that the bold it refers back to the money, Leafka.

    However, I'd say that there is a problem with the sentence; the problem, for me, is that I can't help reading the last part as
    ... telling the clients that he had (1) invested their money in low-risk municipal bonds or (2) taking it without their permission.
    -
    which, of course, doesn't make sense:(.

    If you turned the sentence round, it would - I think - work much better:
    ... taking the money without the clients' permission or telling them that he had invested it in low-risk municipal bonds.
     

    Juhasz

    Senior Member
    English - United States
    It is clear that it refers to the clients' money, but I don't know what "taking [clients' money] without there permission" would mean in this context. It's either an unnecessary repetition, or else what you're trying to communicate isn't clear. Earlier in the sentence, we read, "he stole...from his clients' funds." How is "taking it without their permission" different from stealing from their funds?

    cross-posted with Loob
     

    Juhasz

    Senior Member
    English - United States
    But Loob, with your suggestion, the sentence would read, "he stole...from his clients' funds, taking the money without their permission..." That's pretty much the definition of stole, isn't it?
     

    Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Yes, it is, Juhasz. I was really just trying to explain how the structure of the sentence struck me; but you could certainly make the sentence tighter by removing the "taking without permission" part.
     

    Juhasz

    Senior Member
    English - United States
    Unless, "taking it without their permission" is supposed to signify something other than he stole their money. We'll have to wait and see.
     

    Leafka

    Senior Member
    Polish
    Hi again, I wanted to emphasise that he took the money in two ways: 1) with the permission of clients who were told the money would be invested 2) without any permission.

    Should I try to emphasise it in a diffrent way?
     
    Last edited:

    Juhasz

    Senior Member
    English - United States
    As I mentioned, "he stole" and "he took without permission" mean the same thing, so some rephrasing will be necessary just to avoid redundancy. How you can rephrase it depends on what exactly you want to say.

    Here's how I currently understand the situation: the investor stole money two ways. 1) He told clients he was investing their money, but in fact was not investing it, but taking it for himself. 2) He took money out of clients' accounts and gave it to himself, hoping that no one would notice the missing funds.

    Is that right?

    If it's something like that, the contrast that you'd want to highlight is not that method 2 was undertaken without the clients' permission. The clients didn't give him permission to steal their money via method 1, either. Perhaps you could emphasize that method 2 was more direct, or relied on the clients not paying attention to their funds.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top