Oh I’d swear when I read the article it said it was a civil case (I assume I misread?) - in that case the cut and dryness of guilt (where guilt is criminal) seems more interesting.
In that case maybe the employment contract was presented as evidence that they knew they were not permitted to engage in this kind of trade, to undermine a “I didn’t think this was wrong” defense? But yeah criminal vs civil does change things a bit.
In that case maybe the employment contract was presented as evidence that they knew they were not permitted to engage in this kind of trade, to undermine a “I didn’t think this was wrong” defense? But yeah criminal vs civil does change things a bit.