Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 17 of 29. COUNT V: CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE FEDERAL CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Against Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities) 240. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 239 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 241. Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities have undertaken the fraudulent acts described in Count IV above as part of a common scheme. Defendants willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with others to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Defendants intentionally concealed their fraudulent conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence. 242. Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities were aware of the illegal activity. Altman, as OpenAI, Inc.’s co-founder, CEO, and Board member, and Brockman as its CTO and prior Board member, knew that they had made false and/or misleading representations to Musk and other contributors that OpenAI, Inc. would be a non-profit devoted to the open-source development of AI for the benefit of humanity, and that Musk’s financial or other contributions were supposed to be used solely to further such charitable purpose. On information and belief, Altman and Brockman have at all relevant times been officers, agents, employees, and/or owners whose knowledge and intent is imputed to the OpenAI For-Profit Entities. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities knew of and agreed to facilitate the operation of the Enterprise and/or Defendants’ scheme. 243. Altman and Brockman directed and caused the OpenAI For-Profit Entities to engage in the racketeering activity alleged hereinabove. 244. Each Defendant understood that he or it was committing numerous RICO predicate acts and participating in a racketeering scheme, evidenced among other things, by his or its overt acts and involvement in repeatedly promulgating false and/or misleading representations via wire transmissions, including email correspondence, online transmittal, and social media posts, and receiving financial and other contributions, including wired funds, based on those fraudulent communications. In addition, on information and belief, the OpenAI For-Profit Entities understood they were facilitating and/or aiding and abetting Altman’s self-dealing and furthering the scheme by helping to conceal Defendants’ fraudulent conduct. 245. The participation and agreement of Altman, Brockman, and each of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities was necessary to the scheme. Defendants knew their predicate acts were part of a pattern of racketeering activity and agreed to the commission of those acts to further the scheme, and agreed and conspired to conduct and participate in the affairs of the Enterprise through a consistent and continual pattern of racketeering activity. Further evidence of the agreement among Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities is peculiarly within the knowledge and control of Defendants. 246. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), Musk has been injured in his business and property, as alleged herein, and is entitled to treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Lead Image by Jonathan Kemper on Unsplash Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part of this filing here. This part is 17 of 29. Elon Musk v OpenAI, Court Filing, retrieved on April 30, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part of this filing here . This part is 17 of 29. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT V: CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE FEDERAL CIVIL RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (Against Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities) 240. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 239 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 241. Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities have undertaken the fraudulent acts described in Count IV above as part of a common scheme. Defendants willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully conspired, confederated, and agreed together and with others to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Defendants intentionally concealed their fraudulent conduct, which prevented Musk from discovering their scheme, notwithstanding his exercise of due diligence. 242. Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities were aware of the illegal activity. Altman, as OpenAI, Inc.’s co-founder, CEO, and Board member, and Brockman as its CTO and prior Board member, knew that they had made false and/or misleading representations to Musk and other contributors that OpenAI, Inc. would be a non-profit devoted to the open-source development of AI for the benefit of humanity, and that Musk’s financial or other contributions were supposed to be used solely to further such charitable purpose. On information and belief, Altman and Brockman have at all relevant times been officers, agents, employees, and/or owners whose knowledge and intent is imputed to the OpenAI For-Profit Entities. The OpenAI For-Profit Entities knew of and agreed to facilitate the operation of the Enterprise and/or Defendants’ scheme. 243. Altman and Brockman directed and caused the OpenAI For-Profit Entities to engage in the racketeering activity alleged hereinabove. 244. Each Defendant understood that he or it was committing numerous RICO predicate acts and participating in a racketeering scheme, evidenced among other things, by his or its overt acts and involvement in repeatedly promulgating false and/or misleading representations via wire transmissions, including email correspondence, online transmittal, and social media posts, and receiving financial and other contributions, including wired funds, based on those fraudulent communications. In addition, on information and belief, the OpenAI For-Profit Entities understood they were facilitating and/or aiding and abetting Altman’s self-dealing and furthering the scheme by helping to conceal Defendants’ fraudulent conduct. 245. The participation and agreement of Altman, Brockman, and each of the OpenAI For-Profit Entities was necessary to the scheme. Defendants knew their predicate acts were part of a pattern of racketeering activity and agreed to the commission of those acts to further the scheme, and agreed and conspired to conduct and participate in the affairs of the Enterprise through a consistent and continual pattern of racketeering activity. Further evidence of the agreement among Altman, Brockman, and the OpenAI For-Profit Entities is peculiarly within the knowledge and control of Defendants. 246. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), Musk has been injured in his business and property, as alleged herein, and is entitled to treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on August 05, 2024, deadline.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. deadline.com Lead Image by Jonathan Kemper on Unsplash Lead Image by Jonathan Kemper on Unsplash Jonathan Kemper on Unsplash

Musk Claims OpenAI Violated Original Partnership Deal

OpenAI's Corporate Structure Questioned in Musk Lawsuit

Too Long; Didn't Read

CTA: Download the FREE AI Productivity Shift report

Elon Musk Accuses OpenAI Leaders of Conspiring to Violate RICO Laws

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

The Noonification: Can You Improve Your Mental Health with Psychedelics? (11/28/2022)

The Noonification: How Big Tech Influences Privacy Laws (11/24/2022)

The Noonification: Pick Your Billionaire (11/12/2022)

The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? (10/20/2022)

Judge Rules Anthropic’s Use of Books for AI Training Was Legal, but Pirated Copies Raise Liability

The Noonification: Can You Improve Your Mental Health with Psychedelics? (11/28/2022)

The Noonification: How Big Tech Influences Privacy Laws (11/24/2022)

The Noonification: Pick Your Billionaire (11/12/2022)

The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? (10/20/2022)

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps