I would love to know what context could surround the sentence "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA" that makes it not an admission that they are operating as an unlicensed securities exchange in the USA.

There's a ton of context that could work. Anything where it's framed as either (a) untrue or (b) temporary and about to be mitigated.

"What we are being falsely accused of is: 'we are operating...'"

"We are operating... To fix this we must xyz"

But I consider the second one to make the most sense. Saying "we have a problem" is a common first step of fixing it. Saying "we will be committing a felony if I don't win this argument" is usually a good card to play.

those are both admissions, with (a) being an admission against interest. they could try and say that it was untrue or temporary (the latter being an admission of guilt, so not a smart move) but that'd be for a jury to determine, most likely.

you can't just go to court and disavow all statements you've made as being ironic or untrue, facially, as a means of end-running the claims against you. you have to litigate your defense.

They aren't both admissions. (a) is saying the context of the statement makes it clear they were saying it was untrue at the time. This happens all the time in, for instance, libel cases, where your attorney will have to submit court papers that include the words, in order, something like "freejazz kills puppies". Obviously, the rest of the sentence or paragraph makes it clear they were quoting someone.

You're right they cannot ex post facto just be like "we were joking". They would be "you're talking the quotes out of context".

And (b) can be future looking. But "temporary and mitigated" is probably a great way to go into these hearings. Maybe not according to the letter of the law, but in general it tends to work out well for the people involved. Since most agencies issue punishments to influence future behavior.

sarcasm and hyperbole soon to become illegal. thanks. good work.

Does the context that it was written by the chief compliance offer in a work email make any difference? Should people be held to account for what they express at any time, or is “sarcasm” a valid cover your ass for any situation?

Can't wait for a CEO to announce that their child labor was "Just a prank bro"

Bro, if you don't file those fcking papers I told you to file last week "we are operating as a fking unlicensed securities exchange in the USA bro", and that would really suck