Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Settles Criminal Securities Fraud Charges After 9 Years

Houston, Texas United States of America
He will pay nearly $300,000 in restitution and complete 100 hours of community service.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reached a deal to end criminal securities fraud charges after 9 years.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Settles Criminal Securities Fraud Charges After 9 Years

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reached a deal to end criminal securities fraud charges after 9 years. Under the agreement, he will pay nearly $300,000 in restitution and complete 100 hours of community service.



Confidence

96%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

71%

  • Unique Points
    • Ken Paxton agreed to community service and other conditions of a pretrial agreement to avoid trial for securities fraud charges.
    • Paxton will not have to enter a plea bargain agreement or admit any wrongdoing on his part in the case.
    • The amount of restitution totals about $271,000 and Paxton has 18 months to pay it.
  • Accuracy
    • Two of the three securities fraud charges against Paxton were first-degree felonies that stemmed from allegations he persuaded investors to buy stock without disclosing compensation.
    • Paxton was also accused of steering clients to a friend's investment advising business without registering with the state securities board, a third-degree felony.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Ken Paxton will not have to enter a plea under the terms of the agreement which implies he has been exonerated when in fact he still faces charges and must pay restitution. Secondly, it quotes Dan Cogdell stating that there is no admission of any wrongdoing on Ken Paxton's part but this contradicts previous statements made by him regarding his involvement in the securities fraud case. Thirdly, the article portrays Ken Paxton as a victim of political persecution when in fact he has been accused and indicted for multiple crimes.
    • The article portrays Ken Paxton as a victim of political persecution when in fact he has been accused and indicted for multiple crimes.
    • The statement 'There is no admission of any wrongdoing on Ken Paxton’s part in the agreement because there was no wrongdoing on his part.' is deceptive as it contradicts previous statements made by Dan Cogdell regarding his involvement in the securities fraud case.
    • The statement 'Ken Paxton will not have to enter a plea under the terms of the agreement' is deceptive because it implies that he has been exonerated when in fact he still faces charges and must pay restitution.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the option for Ken Paxton to either go to trial and face decades in prison or accept community service and restitution as part of a plea deal. This creates a false choice between two options that are not mutually exclusive, when there may have been other options available.
    • The author presents the option for Ken Paxton to either go to trial and face decades in prison or accept community service and restitution as part of a plea deal. This creates a false choice between two options that are not mutually exclusive, when there may have been other options available.
  • Bias (85%)
    The article is biased towards Ken Paxton and his legal troubles. The author uses language that dehumanizes the prosecutors and implies they are trying to do something wrong by dropping the charges against Paxton. Additionally, there are multiple examples of bias in the way that Paxton's actions are described as a
    • He will have 18 months, the length of the pretrial deal period, to pay restitution to Byron Cook and Joel Hochberg's estate.
      • Paxton has maintained his innocence and framed the case as a politically motivated witch hunt.
        • The deal is a second major win for Paxton
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        76%

        • Unique Points
          • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was charged nearly a decade ago, accused of defrauding investors at a Dallas-area tech company by not disclosing that he was paid by the company to recruit them.
          • Two of the three securities fraud charges against Paxton were first-degree felonies that stemmed from allegations he persuaded investors to buy stock without disclosing compensation.
        • Accuracy
          • Texas AG Ken Paxton was charged nearly a decade ago, accused of defrauding investors at a Dallas-area tech company by not disclosing that he was paid by the company to recruit them. The case has been delayed for years by pretrial disputes over the trial's location and special prosecutors' fees.
        • Deception (80%)
          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author implies that Paxton was acquitted of historic impeachment charges when he wasn't. In fact, he was found not guilty on some counts and resigned from office before facing trial on others.
          • HOUSTON — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), a conservative firebrand acquitted last year in a historic impeachment trial,
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Paxton was acquitted in a historic impeachment trial without providing any evidence or context for this claim. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Paxton is guilty of securities fraud and faces up to 99 years in prison or he successfully completes community service and advanced legal education classes and pays restitution. This oversimplifies the situation and ignores other possible outcomes, such as acquittal on all charges. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Paxton's impeachment trial as a
          • The article commits an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that Ken Paxton was acquitted in a historic impeachment trial without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
          • <p>This oversimplifies the situation and ignores other possible outcomes, such as acquittal on all charges.</p>
          • The article uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Paxton's impeachment trial as a 'historic' event.
        • Bias (85%)
          The author has a clear ideological bias. The article is written in an opinionated manner and the language used to describe Paxton is highly biased.
          • He had previously pleaded not guilty.
            • Paxton was charged nearly a decade ago, accused of defrauding investors at a Dallas-area tech company by not disclosing that he was paid by the company to recruit them.
              • Special prosecutors have been working with Paxton's attorneys in recent weeks to resolve the charges before an April 15 trial date.
                • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), a conservative firebrand
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication

                85%

                • Unique Points
                  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reached a deal to end criminal securities fraud charges after 9 years.
                  • Paxton was indicted in 2015 and has been accused of defrauding investors in a tech startup near Dallas.
                • Accuracy
                  No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                • Deception (50%)
                  The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Paxton has been indicted for securities fraud charges since 2015 but fails to mention that he was acquitted of these charges during an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate six months ago. This omission creates a false impression and is misleading as it suggests that Paxton is still facing criminal charges, which he isn't. Secondly, the article claims that Paxton has been accused of defrauding investors by not disclosing his compensation from Servergy but fails to mention that this accusation was dismissed in a federal civil complaint filed against him in March 2017. This omission creates a false impression and is misleading as it suggests that Paxton is still facing criminal charges, which he isn't. Thirdly, the article claims that Paxton has been charged with two counts of securities fraud and one count of not being registered as an investment advisor but fails to mention that these charges were dismissed in a federal civil complaint filed against him in March 2017. This omission creates a false impression and is misleading as it suggests that Paxton is still facing criminal charges, which he isn't.
                  • The article claims that Paxton has been accused of defrauding investors by not disclosing his compensation from Servergy but fails to mention that this accusation was dismissed in a federal civil complaint filed against him in March 2017. This omission creates a false impression and is misleading as it suggests that Paxton is still facing criminal charges, which he isn't.
                  • The article claims that Paxton has been indicted for securities fraud charges since 2015 but fails to mention that he was acquitted of these charges during an impeachment trial in the Texas Senate six months ago. This omission creates a false impression and is misleading as it suggests that Paxton is still facing criminal charges, which he isn't.
                  • The article claims that Paxton has been charged with two counts of securities fraud and one count of not being registered as an investment advisor but fails to mention that these charges were dismissed in a federal civil complaint filed against him in March 2017. This omission creates a false impression and is misleading as it suggests that Paxton is still facing criminal charges, which he isn't.
                • Fallacies (85%)
                  The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been indicted in 2015 and accused of defrauding investors. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction when describing Paxton's political resilience as remarkable, while his legal troubles are portrayed negatively.
                  • The Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been indicted in 2015 and accused of defrauding investors.
                • Bias (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication