where was that? there are a few things that are from before they were a charity but still were things that happened - im not defending him, just want to know where this thank you note was if its not what Im thinking about (they left a "thank you" note from something many years before they became an official charity but it was still for something they did)
@@SilverHeimdallI believe its on their website. Karl points out that open hands highlighted a quote from ucsf that thanked them for the donation at 2016, nut the individual that made the quote left as the presidents years before the posted date. N it sounds like the donation they gave wasn't monetary, but body parts
Someone predicted his next line of hustling the same people in the gaming community. A move towards indie funding which we’ve seen immense shadiness with the likes of kickstarters etc. This dude may be forced to make an honest living but as the age old phrase goes ….”a sucker is born every minute”
Since he apparently didn't steal any of the money, in fact pronbably worked hundreds of free hours for it, I don't exactly understand how you came to this conclusion.
Man, it's really just such an incredible coincidence that after 10 years of waiting, he was finally able to make his restricted donation within months of people pointing out that he hadn't done it. It could have happened at any point over those 10 years, but it happened now, it must be magic.
For the record, it LEGALLY constitutes charity fraud if you claim you are donating money to a charity or organization and you are not. Among the several things the Completionist said, like "We are working with this and that charity" and many less ambiguous lines as well, he did say that they were the "main funding support" for the UCSF. That means they were funding the UCSF, giving them money, and to such degree that they were among those giving the most, the main, the top echelon of funders. "Main funding support" = "The one who gives the most money". That line alone constitutes charity fraud, because the amount given was $0. Not only were they not the "main" funding support, they were not even "funding". Add any other potentially and overtly misleading statements, and it only gets bigger. For all intents and purposes, legally, this is charity fraud.
Yes. I don't care if did it maliciously or not, he promised he would forward the money to the charities and he didn't do that. He could have a million reasons and it doesn't change the fact that he simply lied about what he was supposed to do. Giving the donated money to charity was the SINGLE THING he was supposed to do. One single thing and for whatever reason, he didn't do it. Be it laziness, 'not being on top of things', planning to steal the money, i don't care. He failed at the one thing he promised to do!
No the fuck it isn't. Charity fr@ud denotes personal gain or a conspiracy. The money was given to charity. They don't have to report to you, even if the reporting was bad or if Jirard misrepresented them. Those aren't crimes. Mindnumbing how wrong. What IS legally consequential is falsely alleging fr@ud, especially for those making public statements of fact and media content alleging the same. Not a bandwagon to jump on, and surprising so many big you tubers are doing so. Jirard will have big grounds to l!tigate.
Since @massivewon seems to have deleted his reply saying that I was "mindnumbingly wrong" because Charity fraud "denotes personal gain or a conspiracy", and my reply to them seems to have vanished as well (probably because it contained a link), I will again write down the part of the legal definition of "Charity Fraud" that fits what's happening here, before someone else comes barking because their personal impression doesn't fit what the law says: * "Pretending to be a charity or *_falsely claiming to be affiliated with a legitimate charity in order to solicit donations"_* (claiming they were working with several charities over the years, publishing a repurposed letter where UCSF allegedly thanked them for the money donation in 2016, when in actuality was from when they donated Jirard's mother remains, and the person signing the letter had left UCSF years before the Foundation even existed, namedropping charities and organizations left and right, etc) * *_"Making false representations about_* the cause or *_the amount of money that will be donated to the cause"_* (publishing a number of money raised during Indieland, and now claiming it was less than that, while not disclosing any other source of income, saying that everything they got from bits, merch, etc, during Indieland was also for the charity and now saying it was to cover their expenses)
And to clarify, I'm not saying he needs to go to jail (unless he gets audited and it turns out he took money away from the charity, of course), but authorities need to take cards in the matter, because Jirard threw away a bunch of numbers and excuses (that contradict what he himself had said previously), accompanied by implied allegations of non-existent attacks, but he failed to produce any receipts, and his word is currently too devaluated to take him at face value. The Open Hand Foundation needs to be audited to see the extent of the Charity Fraud, and best case scenario, if no money was taken, give them a stern slap on the wrist (a fine, a temporal inhibition of some sort, or something like that).
The website also says to make checks out to the open hand foundation so it should show up in their revenue. If the profit from that isn’t in the 600k then it’s either tax fraud or charity fraud, I don’t see a third option. I think as this point the completionist owes it to the people that donated to do an audit to prove no money is missing.
People act like holding the money is equivalent to spending it, the reasoning he gave for holding the money makes sense, he should have just been upfront about it.
I love the fact that he's trying to retcon things he said and were recorded. It went pretty fast from "I found out in 2022 and I was fucking pissed" to "it was always supposed to be this way."
Both of these things can be true. The fact you can't take a second to think about why that is proves you just want to be outraged. He could both be angry when he found out, and it also could have been the organizations plan the entire time. He is just ONE board member.
@@DakotaActually lol but the fact that you're misunderstanding what mage said proves you just wanna lick boots. There is absolutely, positively NO SITUATION where he would be on the board of the foundation and be the person responsible for handling the donation partners and not know this was the plan the entire time unless he is grossly negligent or intentionally misleading. You know how many meetings he'd be in for this charity weekly, monthly, yearly? His job at the charity was finding partners to donate to. So did he just.... not for 8+ years? Best case scenario is he has no business running a charity and should never be near a charity again. Worst case is he was doing intentionally.
@@DakotaActually He also has factually comitted charity fraud, by stating that they are "the main funding" for the University of San Francisco, now read through it one more time with me, and take his balls out of your mouth. THE MAIN FUNDING, not "we're working with so and so" or "in comunications with this charity", main funding for them.
@@LilianaPhi In muta's video he mentions he took over looking for donation partners when he discovered it had not been donated yet. Neither videos really dispute this, and I haven't exactly found anything perpetuating this to be the case publicly.
@@Inurantchan in the tax filings his position in the company was a title related to donation partners. im not 100% sure what it was but that was his job. if he "took over" finding partners then, then i have no idea what he was doing for the first few years.
"We are in SERIOUS talks with our legal team" can't be that serious, because I'm SURE his entire legal team is FURIOUS with his response video. 5-minute apology, 15 minutes of ANGRY tantrum throwing.
I’m sure they would’ve disapproved of him coming on to Karl and Mutahar’s interview. He incriminates himself in so many ways. A prosecutor would have a field day with that recording.
Where did you see 5 minutes of apology, in the mish-mash of emotional manipulation, sympathy seeking, outright lies, and gaslighting? I must have missed it.
IMO; Jirard's response was nothing but lawyer-approved backpedaling and goalpost shifting. I don't believe for a second that the money would have been donated if he hadn't been publicly called out for keeping it for TEN YEARS, and he also absolutely lied about intending to keep the money for a restricted donation down the line. If that was the case; then why was he shocked to find out that the money hadn't been donated by 2022, much less continue to lie after he 'found out' at that point? It's a complete contradiction.
My main issue is not knowing/understanding all this financing lingo. One side says some money thing, the other side says opposite, while I have no idea if any of it is real at all. This really seems like an issue that only the courts can give an answer to, that or some 1000 IQ law pro dives deep into this for us.
The question is where did the money come from? They could have just cut a check from new money (not donated money) and invested/gambled the donated money. 5% over 10 years is around 300k in lost interest too, just donating 600k isn't enough.
He's cooked. He said over and over again that not only that they would donate the money but that they have donated. Over and over again. Countless livestream recordings of this. I expect compilation videos of the dozens of times he's said they have donated to these charities to evoke more donations. This is charity fraud. Open and shut. He will have his day in court, but it won't be pretty.
He also said he was stepping down from the board and they’ll stop taking any charity but of course you purposely leave it out so you cry about a situation you saw from 2 RUclips videos 😂😂
Saying that you've donated money to charities to evoke more donations when you haven't *IS* the definition of charity fraud. End of story. Go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Honestly the funniest thing about the video to me is clarifying that Open Hand Foundation used some money for administrative costs and that the bigger the organization the more administrative costs are... So... he DOES know organizations require administrative costs but when the places that ACTUALLY do the work say they are going to use some for administrative costs it leads to holding money for 10 years?
I guess he forgot that in the charity streams he made a big point of saying that they don't touch the money and it goes straight to the actual charities.
He also made a point in saying he and his family aren't getting paid salaries...which is generally the biggest cost in terms of administration overhead.
@@CamembertDave Yep. Which makes this video a confession. It wouldn't be unusual for an event to recoup expenses. But that'd mean *not* saying every penny goes to X. It wouldn't be unusual to eat the costs of an event that's a charity fundraiser, so that you *can* say all donations are going to X. Aaaaand that's not what happened. I feel like his bluster about welcoming an audit are because the receipts are probably actually fine... if he hadn't lied constantly in public in recordings and writing about where the money was going or has gone to.
The most sleezy thing out of all this is how much The Completionist keeps repeating the sob story about his mom. In this very response video he repeated that over 5 times. That's a manipulation tactic. He's appealing to emotion to make people feel sorry for him and believe him. That is manipulation 101. This is the one thing that has irked me the whole time, ever since the first video that Mutahar and Karl Jobst posted.
I just studied up on this for my CPA exams. A person donating to a non-profit organization should have the option upon their donation to restrict their donation for a specific purpose. To my knowledge there is no time period or dollar amount that must be met in order for something to become restricted. You could donate $5 and tell the non-profit, "I want this to go to breast cancer". The non-profit is then obligated to use that $5 for that purpose. If this person was raising money on stream to donate to a certain cause, it's like they're advertising how the money will be used (restricted). Anyone donating at that time was likely thinking that's what the money would be used for. I'm not sure what the donation links looked like and whether there were options to restrict donations, but if there wasn't an option to restrict, most people probably thought their money was going to the charity this person was advertising on stream. Asmon is right in that this isn't rocket science. You give money to an organization for a specific purpose. It is then the responsibility of the organization to use that money in accordance with the donors wishes. I've been searching around trying to find a limitation on how long a non-profit can hold money before donating to the designated charity and can't find anything. I will say though if a person is taking a tax write-off in the year of donation, unless specified by the donor, "hold my $5 for 10 years then donate the money", the non-profit should probably donate the funds within the year. I do find it odd that this person was raising a ton of money for a specific purposes, but had not thought about which organization to actually donate the money to. Then to take as long as they did to actually donate the money is strange. Sounds like this person is mostly just incompetent when it comes to non-profit operations and how donations work. Probably for the best that he stepped down.
I work for a 501c3. You are absolutely correct how restricted/unrestricted funding works. Open Hand ONLY facilitates UNRESTRICTED funding donations through their website and EFT software they use. The twitch events force Open Hand to comply with restricted funding and that money can't go anywhere outside of the restriction. That is why they sat on it for 10 years. Funny thing about 501c3 finances is, after a certain amount of time, idle funds can be reallocated to other projects/programs that the foundation has through a board vote and transparency compliance. The golf event only raises money for UNRESTRICTED funding. Most of the general public have no idea how complex 501c3 finance is. It would not surprise me at all if their plan was to sit on that money until Jirard was done with his RUclips/Influencer career ride off into the sunset and use that money as an additional nest egg... That's just me speculating though.
This isnt an issue of time limits when talking about charity fraud. The man mentioned specific orgs that never recieved a cent (they should probably look into taking legal action against him). He also claimed that all donations would go to those orgs when in fact they went to hosting the events (and nothing else since nothing was donated from OpenHand).
i did the same thing as you did and tried to find the time limit and couldn't find it. I wrote a comment about how I feel on this one and am not going to repost the book report I wrote. here is the problem I see, why would anyone giving money on live streams or at a golf event put a restriction on the money? Not only that, but there are ways around moving money to non restricted status. I doubt anyone donating knew about restricting donations because it's not something you hear about. In terms of why it took so long for it to be donated, I agree that doesn't make sense. Just like in any business' operation, the head doesn't always know what is going on unless they are given the information. How hard would it be for someone to tell him the money was going to a charity and it wasn't? Same thing with the cost of events, it sounds like the numbers he quoted were more then likely given to him and he didn't know. The fact that he found out the money wasn't donated is plausible and in terms of accounting, the person who does theirs would have to have the information needed for expenses. Even with him stepping down, it doesn't effect what someone else in the organization might have done. I feel like people need to be looking at the people who are part of the body of the organization and their part in what has been going on. We don't have all of the facts because he never talked about how much information he was really given,
it only took people hounding him to do it. this isnt him doing the right thing, this is him trying to save face. DO NOT GIVE THIS GUY A CENT EVER AGAIN
@@fruitsalad1181 not really... There's some youtubers who have been trying to do that very thing and failing every step of the way, illuminaughtii being one I can think of off hand. She's been outright ignoring things and continues to crank out videos, but the viewership has plummeted severely. Her videos used to get something around 300k to 1million views, and now top off at around 50k at most... As someone who's helped people kick off their youtube careers, I can tell you the difference in income for her is probably enormous, as a friend of mine gets on average 20k views on his videos, and only makes a few hundred dollars per month off it.
The amount Open Hands say they had in the tax document also seemed to exclude bits, superchats and subs. Jirard said they were going to factor in those sources as well. The reason the amount is 600K is because they donated before the follow-up videos showed that this shouldn't be the low ball estimate anymore.
Cost of operation is part of the filing and if they said the cost of operation is that high... why wasn't it reported? Tax filings does not calculate for "profit" on the Revenue and expense line. You report the entire dollar amount you made, without accounting for the costs because there's a separate line for costs themselves and they should be itemized to describe what each cost is about/for. @@Blighted_Ashes
Still missing money. None of the merch, golf shit, subscription that he claimed will go to charity are are exempt under Qualified Sponsorship. He needs to get investigated.
Even if people don't accept that, they have the clearance and backing document that says they didn't. So the people who won't believe that afterwards are no consequence.@@Haruka_May
This should be pinned. Not only this stuff but the fact his own personal stature grew BECAUSE the charity grew. I'd also like to know if he ever sold any personal merch at those events. (I don't know if he has any I just assume he does because he's a streamer / RUclipsr)
@@Haruka_May if that happened there is still the issue of the morals behind lying and he should at least be shamed for lying for at least a year if not 2 years though I highly dought thats all that happened but without any evdicne of the bank account in question can't say
Can totally relate to this guy. My grandma died of cancer when I was young and I totally had the liquid cash lying around at 14 years old to start a tax exempt non profit that shell games peoples money for 10 years on a whim. Feel sorry for me and my trust fund I used to set up an apparatus to steal your money. Because my grandma died.
“At no point in my life on this planet have I ever been caught committing a crime” doesn’t mean nothing happened. Also I don’t think major incompetence/negligence is a get out of jail free card, his credibility is completely gone in my eyes
"Nobody ever caught me" is biggest red flag ever. The very essence of "suspicious". It's not a proof of innocence, it's a claim of being smart enough to avoid law and that there should be at least some basic level investigation if anything fishy has happened around him. Being negligent/stupid is not valid reason to not do the one thing he was supposed to with the money, donate it.
It is not incompetence or negligence either. It's so obviously malicious. He himself said that he found out about it not being donated in 2021, now he comes out here saying the plan was to make a restricted donation all along, while in call with karl and muta, he says that when he found out, he wasn't happy and said it was "not cool". all while deliberately comitting charity fraud by saying he worked with charities. And to be clear, the notion that his speech in the past does not directly say he has donated to these charities is also false, he said stated, wholeheartedly, that the open hand foundation was "THE MAIN FUNDING" for the university of San Francisco, that literally means they have funded them, not only that, but they are the biggest funding for them.
@@Seraph-pw6ftthat guy was a model citizen He prolly should have ran a house for battered wives to find shelter from abusive husbands, he ws such a good guy
It’s fraud because he’s doing it to con people into donating to them, and it didn’t happen here or there it was happening all the time. Basically every charity event including Indy land events.
@TiagitoP It didn't seem to me that the attack was written by the same person/people as the rest of the response. I get the sense he went off script for that part.
Seeing him getting mad and defensive at how this is tarnishing his family's name reminded me of a quote from Oppenheimer. "You don't get to commit sin and then ask all of us to feel sorry for you when there are consequences."
But that isn't entirely Oppenheimer's fault. He was just a man doing research and trying to make a living, getting his career and doing his job. It's the higher ups and the government, and the overall country that decided to use him for weapons of mass destruction. He didn't set out to bomb an entire country. He was always a pawn, it's the system and the government, not the man trying to earn a living and doing what he loves. And as a side note: You can say that what the US did was justified and something we HAD to do. As Japan showed absolutely no signs of stopping and were going to continue their war-crusade, evident by their planned bubonic plague attack on the US that was only stopped BECAUSE of the bombings. If you ask me Japan needed to be stopped, because they refused to back down and kept fighting back. And the US did just that, stopped them and there hasn't been a war since, and it's been almost a century since.
@@gasaiyuno6021 I'm sorry but that's the biggest load I've ever heard. There's been plenty of wars, gulf war, Vietnam, Korea, Ukraine and Russia, Iraq War. The only reason Japan has been so passive since WW2 was because they're not allowed to have a standing army, not because of the bombs. Secondly Oppenheimer didn't care about human life, and to say "He was just a man doing research" is complete bunk too. In 1943 he helped Fermi devise a plan to poison German soldier's food supply with radioactive material. His response to this inquiry was to make sure they used enough to swiftly kill them so no one would catch on, not because he didn't want them to suffer, but fearing it wouldn't work without a large enough supply. In fact he stated they shouldn't go through with it unless they could kill at least half a million people doing so. I'm also sorry to inform you that he was originally hire by the government to make a gun style weapon, and he informed the US government that bombs were the way to kill the most people possible. Oppenheimer had no problems with death or people being killed by his creation, he was an incredibly pessimistic person, and openly stated that all humans were capable of doing was killing one another. "Optimists think that this is the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear they are right." ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer
@@gasaiyuno6021 Not gonna argue with your opinion on US using atomic bombs against Japan, but this "there hasn't been a war since"... like, did you mistype or something? 😅
But it'll probably work for him, his fanbase is loving it and everyone's fogotten he lied about supporting several several charities for nine years. @@OOzd95
That was the only possible outcome, if not a criminal for fraud just extremely stupid. However that card does not play well if he wants to sue Karl and Mutahar
The thing is that the golf expenses were declared, but were pretty small yet the revenue does not line up. You don't get the exclude the expenses from your declaration to lower the revenue being declared which is what it seems they've been doing. Edit: There will be no one suing anyone. Discovery is a bitch and that would give the defendants access to ALL of the financials since 2014 for EVERYTHING related to Open Hands.. No effing way anyone involved in Open Hand wants that happening.
Yeah. Plus, they'd just put Jirard on the stand and show the incriminating clips. "This you? You said this? Yes or no." Discovery on top of *that* level of blatant fraud? That's a civil suit that'd end with the plaintiff catching a sentence. Reminds me of the one where Trump didn't actually end up suing a guy who said Trump was not a billionaire. To Discovery! 🍻 Not just a cable channel!
I don't think he apologized. It was more of a "sorry that you misunderstood what happened. I didn't do anything wrong, but I can be better at communicating in the future."
Same lol.. it seems very put-on and coached. The fact that the video is then followed up with some wannabe heartwarming or insightful bit tacked on he must have realized ending the video with such a pissed off almost comically plastered on “angy face” was a bad look… woof
This was less an apology and more an attempt to look sorry (talking at length about his poor dead sick mom) and then legally threatening people talking about this situation, which is never a good look. We all already knew the story with his mom. The only reason to bring it up is to generate sympathy. And then he launches into angry baseless threats.
you could hear the rage in his voice that he's been found out and has to go through this. I really don't know what the heck he thinks he's salvaging. No one will work with him ever again. His charity work is done for life.
The legal definition of charity fraud per LegalMatch. Please note the final sentence about "dishonest or inflated claims": Charity fraud is when someone takes advantage of a charitable or non-profit organization for their own personal gain. Fraud is defined as intentional deception or misrepresentation made for personal gain. Defrauding a charity can be anything from falsely claiming to be a victim of the disaster in order to get money from the charity, to stealing donations from the collection tin, to setting up a fake charity and pocketing the donations. Fraudulent activity can also occur when people make dishonest or inflated claims about how much money they have raised or how much it has helped the cause.
Seems pretty clear to me.. He says the were just saving the money to donate one huge sum.. Not that complicated.. I'm not saying he should have done that but its highly unlikely they were illegally using that money
he did clarify he's a liar and added new lies to this list that will be used as evidence should this end up in court. I'm hoping it will because I hate people who prey on things like their dead mothers memory and peoples kindness wanting to donate to things personal to them.
There is a name for scam baiting on your own misfortune… it’s sad; just because he’s a douche bag, doesn’t mean he’s that level of d-bag. Likely unprovable short of a confession.
@@Poooppoop22 what point are you trying to make?.. that money donated was never his to begin with, it was made up of donations from his generous viewers and sponsors over a decade, money which is now worth substantially less than it would have been had it been donated when Jirard himself claimed it had been!... as it stands, Jirard himself has donated a negative amount out of his own pocket.
a fun little quirk is he spends like half an hour justifying his admin expenses, but the crux of his argument is that he didnt want to cover admin expenses with the donation.
Muta's new response to Jirard's is a logical dismantle and beat down. Jirard essentially shows no receipts, email chains, and or bank statements that prove his points and Muta points that out and questions The Open Hand documents that Jirar provides and notices another weird discrepancy. They essentially forgot too tick boxes for 7 years and forgot to switch to another type of tax filing form even though they received an IRS letter that says they acknowledge and agreed to it. He doesn't even provide proof of anything of where the golf money went. I think Jirard and his family really want that issue swept under the rug.
by my basic accounting he's short 400k, 500k plus if you include the loss of value over 10 years. So I do care about the golf money because that racks up fast and was getting bigger each year. It was also in some way related to how they were hiding money in general and I'm convinced were talking about a million dollars of fraud here that the family were using. It took them a few weeks to get 600k out there donated to some charity they'd never mentioned one time. I suspect the charities they pretended to have given to already refused to talk to them when they eventually called to donate some of the money, hence a completely new random charity.
They didn't have 600k a decade ago. If they had made annual donations based on what they've earned from the events, both the golf tournament and Indieland, the value of the amounts would have exceeded what they let sit on their account for a decade and donated recently. Which I guess does support your argument, but hey, inb4 there's that guy who tries to be so technical about it
@@mmrchivewell lets say he had 200k in 2019 (Im just assuming from 2020 to 2023 they got 400k+), that would be 244k in 2023, using the us gov website that asmon also use
Even not accounting the monetary differences imagine the possibility of IMPROVING LIVES for a 100k a year. That his foundation held. A likelihood of a cure being found during that time is extraordinarily rare, but QoL is just as important for people experiencing dementia.
Was looking up whether devs that had their games shown on indieland had any thoughts or statements about the thing and one of the links went to the completionist subreddit, which has been "temporarily privated". Speaking of privacy, 'someone' in the sticky hand foundation made a privacy complaint on Karl's video. These are not the actions of innocent people.
He never explained why it took him 10 years to donate. He didnt give examples of why it would take ten years, or show us any other charities that took 10 years to donate. He basically said "i didnt do anything illegal yet" He probably wanted to wait until he had a million in the bank to live off the interest and cash it out through some kind of loophole. Or create a new charity and donate to himself somehow.
The problem is that if you have a charity and close it, you have to donate it to another charity or give it to the government. In order for him to give the money to a new charity it would have to be setup in advance and have the same classification. Another option would be if someone were to set up another charity and they have a merger. There is a catch that can't be avoided. If someone made a restricted donation, they have to give it back to the donor if the charity dissolves. In the state of California, the Attorney General is involved in the process of a merger or closing of a charity. So it's possible that if they tried to create another charity to merge with, this merger may not go through.
Its good for him that after 10 years he finally remembered to donate the money after he was called out for it. He should still be investigated by the government for how much did he possibly pocketed from the golf events and other donations.
Even crazier is the fact that after 5 years of donating money from Indieland, he decides, after having been caught not donating the money, that in the future he won't be donating the money made from indieland. Personally it makes it seem like his plan was the pocket the money all along but got caught.
His mother suffered for 15 years. So he raised this money in her honor and didn't donate it for 10 years? That money could have been used to save someone else's mother within that time frame. If he truly cared about the cause why would you wait this long? Everything this man is disgusts me. What a way to honor your mother bro.
It's funny how comically angry he looks. Scowling, furrowed brow, oh boy he's steamin'. He's piping mad at that gosh dang Mutahar and Karl for calling him out for misleading people, he's furious and they'll PAY. 😤😡🤬
the funniest thing about that is you know Muta and Karl are laughing their asses off watching this. They took legal advice and were super careful about how they phrased things until the golf charity fraud where it was just so obvious they were all scamming. All Jirard has to look forward to can be seen in James Somertons case. That's his future. Delete everything online and GTFO. That's his best case scenario. Worst is the whole family are going to prison.
@@ClayMann A quibble: super-careful would have involved a little more care in the titles and thumbnails... There's a reason this sort of thing is normally done with a question mark at the end, or an "allegedly". It doesn't mean there's enough of a case for Jirard to *win*. I don't think it'd go super-well for him to actually take it to court, since... well... he'd have to bring *all* the receipts, and he'd have to address the lies. But to intimidate and try to coerce a settlement (which could just be an apology)... it's enough that it wouldn't get laughed out of court. Otherwise, yeah, I agree, this Christmas smells like cooked goose.
Jirard: "My Mom always had this saying, "An open hand is always full." Asmongold "It is always full, just like the bank account for the charity." That had me in stitches for awhile. XD 59:49
this video is on point. The problem here is the fact that people were mislead into donating for ten years thinking their money was going somewhere… that’s it
That's the main issue. Right now it doesn't matter if it was untouched in a bank account, or if the family used it for their own personal use. It's a scam either way.
Same, sometimes he still is a meme lol but still love him as a creator. Only problem I’ve not been ok with so far is when he bans ppl who just disagree with him. Not the one’s obviously being trolls but just regular ppl who just don’t agree w him and he bans them. A lil off putting you shouldn’t want everyone watching you to be yes men. But other than that it’s been a fun ride :) I loved doing the whole Pax dei thing seriously a time I won’t forget 🤘🏾👌🏾
This has been the biggest character flip for me. I was very much willing to give the benefit of the doubt in the first video, but damn, I'm convinced that Jirard the Completionist is actually a disgusting monster.
This is one of the reason why I don't like the idea of charity organizations, because there's often corruption, missmanagement, or both. Several known cases of people running with the money, embezling it and even those that donate, it's often like 1 or 2 cents per main currency that they receive, in this case, dollars. That's ignoring the fact that I always point out why I don't like charities as a principle, it's literally the job of the governments to make sure those issues are taken care of, and they are paid through taxes to do so, pushing that into other organizations is telling the govs that what they are doing by not doing their job properly is allowable.
I should add, that this wasn't just a impulse decision from me watching an Asmon video. I was genuinely curious, so I went looking through the subreddit, twitter, youtube, old vods, and the previous controversy with Greg. The signs of what he's really like in private were enough to convince me. It's a shame. I was there in his first few videos recommending games to play and enjoying it like anyone else. Just oblivious to it all.
What pisses me off is that he keeps trying to use what happened to his mother to gain sympathy votes. Like everything that happened to her you think he would be donating this money to the respectful charities immediately but he held onto it for 10 years without donating it until he was found out. This just feels like a slap in the face to his mom and her memory
Two things can be true here: 1. He made the donation because of the pressure. 2. The charitable donation was probably made in anticipation of the audit that is almost certainly coming. The whole response is so tone-deaf. A 2014 audit doesn't help to clear allegations made post-2014, the legal threat against the guys who caught a serious ethical problem, and the back-and-forth between passion and blatant lawyer script. This was super odd. Also, churches regularly receive restricted donations - there's no threshold at all. But like all charities, funds can get moved around as long as there are unrestricted funds. If there are too many restricted donations, all the unrestricted donations go to upkeep. If they are all unrestricted donations, charities get the donation minus the upkeep. The designation is silly from and accounting standpoint..
Keep in mind I'm not a professional and this is only from several hours of research I did for a comment for another channel. And sorry for the book report. Restricted funds can be moved around, if for example the charity contacts the donor and asks if they can reallocate the funds for something else. Let's say that a charity is trying to raise 10k for a new roof or something else that is needed. So a donor says that they are donating xyz to be donated for that cause. They can say that if they exceed the 10k, any money left over would go to other uses. They could also say that any money donated could be moved to a different fund for other purposes. However, if a gift is given without the charity raising funds for a reason and the person donates with a restriction they have options. One of which is to not accept the donation. They do also have the right to ask if the money could be used else where, where it could be used for things that are needed. In this case, I don't think anyone would have made a restricted donation. Since you have money being raised from various events and it doesn't sound like there was an option to donate that way. Here is one people get wrong, and it's all based off of wording. Depending on how you advertise the event, you can take money to cover expenses. There is another issue, I could not find anything stating a time frame for when the donations have to be released. Since he is in the state of California, you can look up Rob Bonta who is the state attorney general and his site does have different avenues that can be used to file a complaint. There is a phone number for the Better Business Bureau and Department of Consumer Affairs. There is a form that can be filled out and mailed in via email or snail mail. From what I read, it can take them time to get to the complaint or it may be sent to someone else to investigate it. The other option is to look up the IRS information for the office in Dallas, Texas. In terms of designation for restrictions, that one is iffy at best. There is a reason they have to list it, but for the life of me I can't remember. If I remember correctly, it's based on how the donation was made. If the donation was made in the form of a stock or other option where money can be pulled from, you are required to keep documentation for it. Like I said, I'm not an expert here and this is all based off of research. Honestly, in a case like this there should have been someone reviewing the information provided when filling with the irs. Depending on who filled the taxes is another matter on how it would be looked at. He never said if they have an accountant file the the returns or if it's a family member. In regards to an audit, normally those aren't done unless there are complaints made and they decide to look into it. An audit may not be done by the irs itself, but rather an outside accountant. In all honesty, that's not something I'm going to dig into because there are so many procedures it's not funny. I'm going to guess that they might look into the expenses more then anything else. If they pass the audit, I honestly don't know how they would prove the claims of embezzlement. I'm guessing they would notice any discrepancies if they were to review the financial statements at the time of the review to see what the expenses were. The other part is there is no way to know when an audit will be done or how. If there was anything noticed by the irs that sent up a red flag, the organization should have been audited by now. They can go back 3 years or more depending on what they find. I do think, if there is any proof of theft, or false information given on the returns that the entire organization should be held accountable, not just Jirard. Not all heads of companies or groups know everything that is going on. If someone told him that the money was going to a cause, he would say that because he would believe it to be true. If he found out money wasn't being given to charities he was told they were, he would have to work with others in the group to find out what was going on and how to fix it. One problem is that if an audit is done, someone from the group would have to report the findings. If legal action is taken, that is something that would more then likely be released in the state itself, since I'm sure that would be level we are looking at for any charges if theft was found. I don't like the fact that it took so long for the money to be released, but there is information that is missing that we need to know before we can pass judgement.
I always like Asmongold comments on these sort of things cause he helps so much taking the argument apart to avoid fallacies and make things that sound ok actually show that it's deceive. It gives good perspective.
"I'm sorry for collecting money under false pretenses and that we got caught, and we had to donate it, I'm also sorry that my father runs a golf tournament with important sponsors while using my charity's name and branding and yet that money is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND! oh and if you keep meddling in my [very legal affairs] I will sue you =D" BEST APOLOGY E V E R !!!!
@@xRIPx86 that was never proven,,, you claim stuff, who said the money was not taken from another accents? well stop defending stuff you dont understand
@@xRIPx86have you ever heard inflation,over the years the moneys from donation value less and if Jirad wasn't exposed,he would have keep the money longer and make the situation worse. Like finally found a trustworthy charity a week after exposed by Karl and Muta after 10 years? What a huge concidence that is and he threaten to sue them which is a stupid idea mind you bc not only if he would waste alot of money and if he loses,he would have to pay them back
If you had all those expenses in your charity, why aren't they in your tax filings? Someone had time for admin cost but putting down expenses and income is to hard?
As someone who has taken film acting classes, and knowing what it's like to have to talk TO a camera. Staring at the camera as intensely as he does, shows that he's reading a script, or reciting something he's been practicing for a long time. Natural talking, and speech processing, makes your eyes move near CONSTANTLY. If you're not scripted at all, you'll look up and right when you think about what you want to say next. If you're lying, you're going to look up and left. His eyes stay on the camera. Not moving. I don't believe a word he's saying.
Good point. Nobody really calls out the fact that he's reading a script and how unauthentic it feels. A scripted speech means that he has spent hours manipulating all the information and wording so that he can make himself look as good as possible.
While i agree with your overall argument, i would suggest you not use the "looking x direction for lies" example, it has been completly disproven by everyone from neurologists to the FBI.
@@bluemyst42 Yeah, the whole situation seems like they were waiting until the money hit a threshold and then it was going to vanish into random bank accounts.
He didn't even "find" one, he donated the whole 600K chunk to the primary charity he always talked about on the events. Forgetting that he had talked about multiple different charities previous, his claim that they weren't donating where they said so that they could find a more suitable charity just straight up is ostensibly untrue now.
The funny/sad thing is even if he couldnt find a charity (which as someone who works with elderly dimentia patients i can tell you there are literally hundreds if not thousands of), then he could just literally donate it towards a research grant which actually would get the near full amount towards actual research instead of spliting it with overhead costs that take upwards of 60% of the amount donated, or literally just donate it to your local nursing home because they absolutely need it. This whole thing irritates me on a personal level because I see every day how awful of a desease dimentia is and for this asshole to just pocket money intented for helping cure or just help people afflicted with it is honestly digusting, and frankly this response just shows that Jirard's carrer is most likely over as once you lose your audiences trust its almost impossible to earn it back.
It would be a tragic twist or irony if this whole incident forced Jirard to donate the money quickly, and he ended up donating it to a scam charity (which most usually are).
@@emperorborgpalpatine Yeah, because he should've donated it YEARS ago. But if what he claimed was actually true, then he wouldn't have immediately donated the money.
The golf event matters because it establishes a pattern of practice and behavior and shows it’s not just gamer drama and branches to other communities.
The golf proceeds were supposed to go to the open hand foundation,it was on the advertising, as well as merch and any other proceeds from indie land. The tax statements even show $55,000 more than what was donated. That doesn't even count the proceeds from the 2023 indieland. There is a lot of missing money in the hundreds of thousands. They also said they would take nothing from the purchases and donations. He said they didn't want any money to go to administrative costs but took those for their own company. It's all very shady.
It's just worse fraud on his part. The charity returns are so god damn basic for the amount of fundraisers they had. Everything needed to be broken down if someone made x donation and any of that went to any kind of expense but there's barely anything on what he reported.
“Gross negligence” is the legal term. But otherwise, Asmon is mostly correct. Once negligence reaches a certain level, a person may be liable for the same kind of punitive damages available for an intentional tort (like fraud).
What about when a person increases their personal fame because they milked the fame of the charity. He used the growth of the "charity" to increase his own personal income.
@@bsx132in a civil case, that would be evidence towards proving intentional fraud. I don’t do crim law much, but if he were prosecuted that would also be evidence towards his intent.
@@Ditendo64honestly either might work. Legal Eagle has bigger reach but he definitely isn't a lawyer who specializes in criminal law but he was a corporate lawyer who primarily dealt with typical corporate issues (copyright, taxes, mergers, etc.) so we might get insights from that side of things. Rekieta Law is a lawyer who dealt with criminal cases and is more knowledgeable in the criminal side of the law.
I'll let the legal system sift this one out. He has shifted from surprise to outrage in a way that was clearly legally advised. It made a case for legal protections but ultimately felt void of understanding for the blowback. At the end of the day its not really for me to judge so I won't but it's juicy to watch!
This is one of those things where I'd actually prefer people not talk about this and let it go to court without hounding anybody and having pitchforks and torches on their public record. In my opinion, everyone should step back and let them ruin their own lives by getting found guilty in court. I wouldn't wanna be seen in an angry mob of people, basically witch-hunting a person on the internet, no matter if they deserve it or not...plus, there's better ways to spend time.
i do agree. the problem with everyone speculating and arm chair lawyering is it can more often then not ruin people even if they did nothing wrong, and at the same time there is no shortage of people that want to see people suffer and drown simply because they are more successful. did they tank their credibility? sure, but that doesn't mean they are guilty. sadly, even if they are found Innocent, people are going to try and claim they are still guilty.
@@Sniperbear13 Technically, they are guilty, and they confessed to it. The legal definition of Charity Fraud includes "falsely claiming to be affiliated with a legitimate charity in order to solicit donations", and Jirard did do that. That doesn't mean he stole money, that's another form of Charity Fraud ("Diverting funds raised for charitable causes to personal use"), and nobody should assume he has engaged in that. I fully agree, no pitchforks should be wielded, they just need to get audited to see the extent of what happened, as he failed to produce any receipts and as you pointed out, he did tank his credibility, so he should not be taken at face value on his claims
It's pretty common that the legal system fails with this kind of stuff. I'm Canadian and the amount of times our prime minister has gotten away with various fraud charges is astounding. Now, this guy isn't on the same power level as my prime minister but his apology speech sounds eerily familiar. This guy's morally guilty if not legally.
I'm not an everyday watcher of you Asmon, but wanted to see your take on this. It is very refreshing to see your perspective, it really makes me look at myself and realise I wasn't really looking at this situation like Jirard is a person. Like - I totally agree that he probably didn't intend to make a getaway with the money or anything. I do think he has handled this WHOLE situation very poorly, but at the end of the day he is just a person, and is probably under a TONNE of pressure legally, socially and also from his family which most people probably aren't thinking about. More of his family members are also at fault, but, Jirard is the only one super super public. I wonder what most onlookers would have done if they 'found' themselves in this situation. His response was a bit pathetic though, but I can't help it is all his thoughts, he would've had lots of people writing the script and stuff. He lit the fire, but at the end of the day I do feel a little bad for him, I'm glad the money was donated :)
Two different classifications of donations. Unrestricted: comes from anywhere and can go anywhere. They wanted to pool all of the Unrestricted donations and then make a bulk donation as a Restricted donation, which is what I think he eventually did. Since the charity (Open Hand) was run by his family, they really had no personal overhead. But they didn't want the bulk donation to evaporate in Admin costs by some large charity, so he just never got around to choosing the charity to make their Restricted donation. So he's using that as an excuse (at least in part) for why he wasn't timely. But it's likely that the family, however unintentionally, broke some laws regarding misrepresentation of charitable funds. It's good that they didn't just up and steal the cash, but negligence can still run afoul of the law. Just mismanagement, really. But for almost a decade? Not a good look, at a minimum. His father's management of the golf tournament, who knows. That's up to the IRS to sort out. But I don't think Jirard was involved with the tourney. But, yeah, he fk'd up, but it doesn't appear that he used the charity as a personal piggy bank - unlike some (well, just one) ex presidents....
Him being mad at Muta and Karl is wild. He claimed to giving money, but never gave it until Karl and Muta made it public. He just needs to go away and his family should never run a charity.
Heres my take on this. He got caught He went silent at the advice of attorneys Attorneys advised him to take the course of action of immediately donating it and then providing proof it was donated. Malicious? Idk. I believe to a degree it was because theres no way it couldnt be after 10 years!
Also its really strange that the organization he donated to the AFTD, came out with a front page news post thanking them specifically for the "gift", when nowhere in their news reel going back years they have mentioned any donations made to them, almost like it was some sort of hastily organized quid pro quo arrangement in order to receive the money.
It's malicious, even if he didn't spend a single cent from the charity, he used the charity for his own personal fame which garnered him personal income.
In his Indieland charity streams he clearly said all donations, bits super chats etc will go to charity and "NONE" will b used for anything else so he did mislead people
I love how he threatens to sue people for using publicly available information about his charity to check whether he was lying. Dude's delusional. I hope he's ready for the audit, it's definitely coming. Making a restricted donation doesn't mean you get to keep the money without donating for 10 years. That's complete bullshit.
He's screwed me and a few other big doners are talking to lawyers as we donated because it was going to a specific charity and he lied we are now looking into legally taking this to court for fraud.
Good. More power to ya, and I hope you can find some interesting details in the discovery portion to spice up your (hopefully inevitable) victory celebration.🤔Well, maybe not "celebration". But whatever's applicable.
Good! I honestly feel like anyone that donated a significant amount of money that has the means of taking Jirard to task (essentially "FU" money) should do so.
Thats my thinking. I figure he was sitting on that egg for the day that people forgot about the fund raising and he lost the limelight, and then he taps into for a nice little retirement.
They could make returns on just holding the money, and then when they get caught, they donate the original amount, covering their asses. That's what I'd do at least, if I was trying to be a scumbag. If you had an interest rate of 7.2%, over ten years, they've doubled the money, essentially losing nothing. Now it mightn't be that high, so maybe it hasn't doubled fully, but 50% extra isn't off thr table. If you can keep it going for a couple decades, suddenly you've made 3 times more off just holding it than you need to donate.
@@bibsp3556that's honestly his biggest fuck up. Just letting that money sit around doing nothing was stupid. If you're gonna steal from everyone, at least put in a little effort
I think the innocent way of handling this would be to say thanks for pointing out the "clerical error" and say it won't happen again. If someone does this aggressive defence it will always be very sus.
Whenever I hear anyone w/ this long verbose statements and then flip things over and guilt trip u for even bothering to investigate or asking. I always think that they are the once who are in bad faith. Instead of apologizing, he flips the script almost saying that u should feel guilty for questioning him and his organization lol.
"All bits, all donations, all super chats, all RUclips memberships, basically anything that's tied to donating or subscribing in a financial way to us is going to charity we're not touching any of it." "from twitch subscriptions and bits along with merchandise have offset some of the production costs" So which is it?
Honestly, if there are no cases like this one, it should go to court to set precedence. Maybe then a judge can decide if this is gross incompetence and if a time limit should be amended into the law either way.
Anyone who trys to tells you their a good person, is trying to convince you. Jirad didn't need to say that at the end of his video. It doesn't come of as genuine after telling everyone his sorry he lied using legalese instead of his own words.
If we learned anything from the past 15 yrs of social media, the people telling you how good and moral they are, never are. 'Good' people just do good. They don't try to convince you.
Facts - we see this same shady-but-legal behavior with the likes of short selling & crap that lead to the 2009 financial crisis. It’s this borderline white collar crime that is SO DISGUSTING
Here's the thing about malicious intent versus not malicious intent. If you are constantly lying and contradicting yourself when asked about what happened to the money, that's malicious intent. If he truly had no idea what was happening with the money and just assumed it was being donated, he would have said so. If he never planned to donate anything until the sum reached $600K so he could make 1 big unrestricted donation, he would have said so. There is no world where you are saying both things at once, without there being malicious intent involved. And this is just 1 example. There are so many contradictions in everything he says, how in the hell would that not be malicious intent? In the end it's very simple: *If he's not malicious but just incompetent, why would he be lying constantly?*
People assume its not malicious because most of the money was still there but they are forgetting about: -The money from the golf events which were destined to charity -The money to his twitch channel that he had to forward -The fact that the organization is not taking any money but still paying expenses like salaries makes it a recurring income for them It should be extremely easy from him to prove he didnt embezzle the money. Just show the bank statements that prove the money from the golf was sent or the revenue generated on his twitch channel during the event that was for good cause. Just show any email that proves that you were unaware that the money was not being donated. All in all zero proof was provided.
If that's what he was supposed to be doing at the end, my feeling is kind of ironic. The getting mad and making threats of lawsuits completely flipped my read from "This guy knows he screwed up bad and is desperately trying to save any face he can with a PR/lawyer-scripted response." to "This guy DEFINITELY has something serious to hide." . It felt to me like he totally went off script at that point. I can't see those two sections being written by the same person/people. In the realm of politics, I've seen this exact kind of confident, self-vindicating, half apology-half attack response to valid allegations/accusations frequently come before more damning evidence is found - which is shortly followed by a resignation and/or indictment. I genuinely hope, for his sake, there's nothing else to find.
@@magnainsomnia Idk, I think there were some retro reviewers, but I don't watch the space so I have no idea if they are nobodies or not. Also they might just be buddies.
That's the same as stealing secretly 600 000$ from a bank and 10 years later when they realize you did it you return the money and then declare: NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED
No it's not. The only thing that was wrong as him not being up front about how and when. This entire thing is about people online getting upset (shocking!!) And nothing in the real world happened.
hey Zach, long time viewer here, never knew you lost your mom, I remember you talking about how you got her into Wow and used to farm with her, back in the day. RIP. Prayers and vibes your way brother!
I said it before and I will repeat, the biggest problem was his lies, he said that he learned it for over a year (incompetence) and yet he did another event saying that it would be donated. He had over a year to fix things by coming clean and do the right thing but instead decided to keep lying and only did when he was called out. I agree that he was not malicious, but it still morally wrong and he did defraud people that donated based on his lies
the concept of charity always seemed to good to be true even without all the fraud and stuff, like a local donation drop box is one thing, but idk how helpful some is without certain families signing up or so, i'd rather give someone in person five dollars rather than donating 50 dollars to some random name/organization, but too bad they can't cut out the middle man and donations made directly to individuals/families like how mr beast (i don't watch him so i'm not that knowledgeable about his channel) was able to get surgery on like 100 blind ppl or whatever or if not, having the money going to building a full on hospital or some senior care thing to where they can stay safely as opposed to some individual adult that has to sacrifice their job to watch over their parents 24/7 so they don't wander off since there are still ppl that'd need weekly care, even though it is important to get medical research to look for a cure.
and flex about him buying all 3DS and DS games now i know where is the money came from there is no way shady mobile ads is enough to cover up that video lol
"Just because you're correct, doesn't mean you're right!" The statement gets more true everyday and i hope the completionist learns that after this missed-the-whole-point video ... sheesh
By Jirard stepping down the foundation has only lost its face. His brother Jacque and his father handle all the financial and business aspects of everything. the people who did this are still in control
You can practically see his lawyers hand up his a-hole puppeting him. A lot of this is him trying to wash his hands of the org along with damage limitation techniques for his channel whilst burying his guilt with this vocal essay. His use of language is incredibly manipulative. And he uses a lot of "we intended" language which muddy's whether he did or didn't do a thing and if it was a bad thing or illegal he's obfuscating it by saying he effectively "didn't mean to" The key issue here is no one can trust him or the org, neither can we trust any documentation provided by him or his organisation, he as, as a matter of fact, lied about donating the money initially. He mentioned any filings that were wrong were not intentional, fraudulent or criminal- all of which literally don't matter as intention isn't a a defence to committing fraud if fraud occured; it's criminal if it's criminal, that's all that matters. Obviously, it didn't take 10 years to donate money. Most money would have been donated within a few months. As for this restricted/unrestricted thing- it's a total smokescreen to hide what they've done. Think about it, they took all that money, sat on it for years, then likely claimed yearly administration and operational fee's and possibly skimmed interest off the top of the money being sat in the account. Even if we say it's all innocent, holding onto the money has massively deflated it's value due to increasing inflation. So whether it's fraud or incompetence it's hurt the charitable cause, for the reason Asmon calculated, namely nearly 100k evaporated. I am still very interested in seeing how many family members and friends are involved with the administration of the charity and any jobs, such as catering. As Asmon said, it's very funny the accusations make the organisation suddenly donate the money if their original plan was to donate it as a large sum, yet as soon as the accusations come they donate it. Something is wrong because the logic isn't consistent. Basically he's saying throughout this; "You can trust the accounts, unless they were wrong, which if they were was by accident, but then are 100% correct when it backs up our claims but if they are wrong it's not our intention but i'm leaving anyway and my family are reorganising the board, even though we did nothing wrong" It's not a strong case. Also him suing Karl etc might bite him in his backside because any legal case would have to delve into his and the organisations finances anyway and just suing them smacks of desperation, particularly as they wash their hands of the charity. He's very duplicitous in his language and actions.
We didn't steal your money... we just took it and held it as long as possible until we were exposed... If if wasn't for those darn kids we would have gotten away with it.
This guy most likely mismanaged the money and just has no business running his own charity. However, it seems to me that he cares about his image and his reputation more than any charitable impact. Notice how he was measured and calm right up until he started talking about taking legal action against other content creators - he started getting visibly angry at that point. He wants to be viewed as the altruistic, wholesome gamer, not the incompetent liar. A narcissist will get angry whenever people become disillusioned about the image they are trying to project.
never thought about it like that but thats a damn good point. but then again anyone would be pissed if someone is out to make them look like a bad person when they were out to try to do good, it's happened to me before. it doesn't excuse what he did but karls video did feel like a hit piece at times more than it felt like someone going for clarity on the situation, which is how that dude gets views so it could be seen as slanderous.
Hmm no it's definitely more than just mismanagement of the money, something more is definitely at play, tax filings are missing so much extra, from Jamie Lee Curtis contributions, merch sales, twitch/RUclips subs, golf charity contributions
@@Tanook At this point, I wouldn't count on the court of public opinion of whether Jirard's fibbing or not. It's time for real professionals to check this out.
Lets remind everyone that he outright forged a thank you note from a charity he never donated to.
Lol he put so much work on his scam
where was that? there are a few things that are from before they were a charity but still were things that happened - im not defending him, just want to know where this thank you note was if its not what Im thinking about (they left a "thank you" note from something many years before they became an official charity but it was still for something they did)
was it the mothers body donation? or a personal one?
@@SilverHeimdallI believe its on their website. Karl points out that open hands highlighted a quote from ucsf that thanked them for the donation at 2016, nut the individual that made the quote left as the presidents years before the posted date. N it sounds like the donation they gave wasn't monetary, but body parts
@@luluna5228 The university they had write a thank you. It was written by a guy who had not been associated with the university for years.
He is not sorry for what he did, he is sorry somebody found out.
Someone predicted his next line of hustling the same people in the gaming community. A move towards indie funding which we’ve seen immense shadiness with the likes of kickstarters etc. This dude may be forced to make an honest living but as the age old phrase goes ….”a sucker is born every minute”
👍
"I'm sorry you felt it was mismanaged."
98% chance this is a fact. Ha. Ha.
Since he apparently didn't steal any of the money, in fact pronbably worked hundreds of free hours for it, I don't exactly understand how you came to this conclusion.
Man, it's really just such an incredible coincidence that after 10 years of waiting, he was finally able to make his restricted donation within months of people pointing out that he hadn't done it. It could have happened at any point over those 10 years, but it happened now, it must be magic.
The stars aligned 😆
he was finally in a mood to get the money to hwere it needed to be!
Life can some times feel magical
In Mutas most recent video he said "its becuase of you guys we are trying to resolve this" to Muta and Karl in thier call
@@TetsuRikenNahh, must've been an AI generated clip
For the record, it LEGALLY constitutes charity fraud if you claim you are donating money to a charity or organization and you are not. Among the several things the Completionist said, like "We are working with this and that charity" and many less ambiguous lines as well, he did say that they were the "main funding support" for the UCSF. That means they were funding the UCSF, giving them money, and to such degree that they were among those giving the most, the main, the top echelon of funders. "Main funding support" = "The one who gives the most money". That line alone constitutes charity fraud, because the amount given was $0. Not only were they not the "main" funding support, they were not even "funding". Add any other potentially and overtly misleading statements, and it only gets bigger. For all intents and purposes, legally, this is charity fraud.
Yes. I don't care if did it maliciously or not, he promised he would forward the money to the charities and he didn't do that. He could have a million reasons and it doesn't change the fact that he simply lied about what he was supposed to do. Giving the donated money to charity was the SINGLE THING he was supposed to do. One single thing and for whatever reason, he didn't do it. Be it laziness, 'not being on top of things', planning to steal the money, i don't care. He failed at the one thing he promised to do!
@@alaric_ More than "he promised to do", the one thing "he said he had already done"
No the fuck it isn't. Charity fr@ud denotes personal gain or a conspiracy. The money was given to charity. They don't have to report to you, even if the reporting was bad or if Jirard misrepresented them. Those aren't crimes. Mindnumbing how wrong.
What IS legally consequential is falsely alleging fr@ud, especially for those making public statements of fact and media content alleging the same.
Not a bandwagon to jump on, and surprising so many big you tubers are doing so. Jirard will have big grounds to l!tigate.
Since @massivewon seems to have deleted his reply saying that I was "mindnumbingly wrong" because Charity fraud "denotes personal gain or a conspiracy", and my reply to them seems to have vanished as well (probably because it contained a link), I will again write down the part of the legal definition of "Charity Fraud" that fits what's happening here, before someone else comes barking because their personal impression doesn't fit what the law says:
* "Pretending to be a charity or *_falsely claiming to be affiliated with a legitimate charity in order to solicit donations"_* (claiming they were working with several charities over the years, publishing a repurposed letter where UCSF allegedly thanked them for the money donation in 2016, when in actuality was from when they donated Jirard's mother remains, and the person signing the letter had left UCSF years before the Foundation even existed, namedropping charities and organizations left and right, etc)
* *_"Making false representations about_* the cause or *_the amount of money that will be donated to the cause"_* (publishing a number of money raised during Indieland, and now claiming it was less than that, while not disclosing any other source of income, saying that everything they got from bits, merch, etc, during Indieland was also for the charity and now saying it was to cover their expenses)
And to clarify, I'm not saying he needs to go to jail (unless he gets audited and it turns out he took money away from the charity, of course), but authorities need to take cards in the matter, because Jirard threw away a bunch of numbers and excuses (that contradict what he himself had said previously), accompanied by implied allegations of non-existent attacks, but he failed to produce any receipts, and his word is currently too devaluated to take him at face value. The Open Hand Foundation needs to be audited to see the extent of the Charity Fraud, and best case scenario, if no money was taken, give them a stern slap on the wrist (a fine, a temporal inhibition of some sort, or something like that).
He claimed that his father's golf event was separate, yet they filed it as expenses from the foundation.
Also it doesn't matter if the event is technically separate, the banners say that the funds go to the OpenHand foundation.
@@jessbellis9510 especially since they had big corpos as sponsors as well...like huh.....
The website also says to make checks out to the open hand foundation so it should show up in their revenue. If the profit from that isn’t in the 600k then it’s either tax fraud or charity fraud, I don’t see a third option. I think as this point the completionist owes it to the people that donated to do an audit to prove no money is missing.
@@toolazyforthis3164 Oh they're going to get an audit whether they want it or not. 100% theyre going to hear from the IRS soon if not already
The fact people are forgetting he sat on this money for many years and are forgiving him is completely insane.
Dont care i like his videos
People act like holding the money is equivalent to spending it, the reasoning he gave for holding the money makes sense, he should have just been upfront about it.
His family sat on the money.
This mess is on all of them, not only him.
@@darkbloom5953held the money for close to a decade for a foundation that needed the money 10 years ago for the research.
You guys forget, a decade of potential research was lost, a decade that could've helped contribute to those suffering
I love the fact that he's trying to retcon things he said and were recorded. It went pretty fast from "I found out in 2022 and I was fucking pissed" to "it was always supposed to be this way."
Both of these things can be true. The fact you can't take a second to think about why that is proves you just want to be outraged. He could both be angry when he found out, and it also could have been the organizations plan the entire time. He is just ONE board member.
@@DakotaActually lol but the fact that you're misunderstanding what mage said proves you just wanna lick boots. There is absolutely, positively NO SITUATION where he would be on the board of the foundation and be the person responsible for handling the donation partners and not know this was the plan the entire time unless he is grossly negligent or intentionally misleading. You know how many meetings he'd be in for this charity weekly, monthly, yearly? His job at the charity was finding partners to donate to. So did he just.... not for 8+ years? Best case scenario is he has no business running a charity and should never be near a charity again. Worst case is he was doing intentionally.
@@DakotaActually He also has factually comitted charity fraud, by stating that they are "the main funding" for the University of San Francisco, now read through it one more time with me, and take his balls out of your mouth. THE MAIN FUNDING, not "we're working with so and so" or "in comunications with this charity", main funding for them.
@@LilianaPhi In muta's video he mentions he took over looking for donation partners when he discovered it had not been donated yet. Neither videos really dispute this, and I haven't exactly found anything perpetuating this to be the case publicly.
@@Inurantchan in the tax filings his position in the company was a title related to donation partners. im not 100% sure what it was but that was his job. if he "took over" finding partners then, then i have no idea what he was doing for the first few years.
"I was angry when I found out the money wasn't donated " to now "its perfectly legal we were saving up to make a bigger impact "
Legally you have to say this. If you think he wrote a word of this, you’re insane lol
the ironic reality is the $20k to $100k they got each year, if donated that same year, would have been 1000 times more valuable and impactful.
How it make bigger impact when inflation higher and higher everyday???
@@shazmodeus2795😅
So he was angry about a thing that he did himself???
"We are in SERIOUS talks with our legal team" can't be that serious, because I'm SURE his entire legal team is FURIOUS with his response video. 5-minute apology, 15 minutes of ANGRY tantrum throwing.
I’m sure they would’ve disapproved of him coming on to Karl and Mutahar’s interview. He incriminates himself in so many ways. A prosecutor would have a field day with that recording.
Where did you see 5 minutes of apology, in the mish-mash of emotional manipulation, sympathy seeking, outright lies, and gaslighting? I must have missed it.
just got to the part where he starts talking in periodic CAPITALIZED words, and your COMMENT made me LAUGH
He spent more effort on this video than he did on donating the money for the last 10 years.
IMO; Jirard's response was nothing but lawyer-approved backpedaling and goalpost shifting. I don't believe for a second that the money would have been donated if he hadn't been publicly called out for keeping it for TEN YEARS, and he also absolutely lied about intending to keep the money for a restricted donation down the line. If that was the case; then why was he shocked to find out that the money hadn't been donated by 2022, much less continue to lie after he 'found out' at that point? It's a complete contradiction.
My main issue is not knowing/understanding all this financing lingo. One side says some money thing, the other side says opposite, while I have no idea if any of it is real at all. This really seems like an issue that only the courts can give an answer to, that or some 1000 IQ law pro dives deep into this for us.
The question is where did the money come from? They could have just cut a check from new money (not donated money) and invested/gambled the donated money. 5% over 10 years is around 300k in lost interest too, just donating 600k isn't enough.
He's cooked. He said over and over again that not only that they would donate the money but that they have donated. Over and over again. Countless livestream recordings of this. I expect compilation videos of the dozens of times he's said they have donated to these charities to evoke more donations. This is charity fraud. Open and shut. He will have his day in court, but it won't be pretty.
He also said he was stepping down from the board and they’ll stop taking any charity but of course you purposely leave it out so you cry about a situation you saw from 2 RUclips videos 😂😂
Saying that you've donated money to charities to evoke more donations when you haven't *IS* the definition of charity fraud. End of story. Go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
Honestly the funniest thing about the video to me is clarifying that Open Hand Foundation used some money for administrative costs and that the bigger the organization the more administrative costs are... So... he DOES know organizations require administrative costs but when the places that ACTUALLY do the work say they are going to use some for administrative costs it leads to holding money for 10 years?
I guess he forgot that in the charity streams he made a big point of saying that they don't touch the money and it goes straight to the actual charities.
Imagine the "administrative costs" that would accumulate in.ten years.
He also made a point in saying he and his family aren't getting paid salaries...which is generally the biggest cost in terms of administration overhead.
@@CamembertDave Yep. Which makes this video a confession. It wouldn't be unusual for an event to recoup expenses. But that'd mean *not* saying every penny goes to X. It wouldn't be unusual to eat the costs of an event that's a charity fundraiser, so that you *can* say all donations are going to X. Aaaaand that's not what happened.
I feel like his bluster about welcoming an audit are because the receipts are probably actually fine... if he hadn't lied constantly in public in recordings and writing about where the money was going or has gone to.
Looking at it from that perspective makes it an even bigger debacle
The most sleezy thing out of all this is how much The Completionist keeps repeating the sob story about his mom. In this very response video he repeated that over 5 times. That's a manipulation tactic. He's appealing to emotion to make people feel sorry for him and believe him. That is manipulation 101. This is the one thing that has irked me the whole time, ever since the first video that Mutahar and Karl Jobst posted.
I just studied up on this for my CPA exams. A person donating to a non-profit organization should have the option upon their donation to restrict their donation for a specific purpose. To my knowledge there is no time period or dollar amount that must be met in order for something to become restricted. You could donate $5 and tell the non-profit, "I want this to go to breast cancer". The non-profit is then obligated to use that $5 for that purpose. If this person was raising money on stream to donate to a certain cause, it's like they're advertising how the money will be used (restricted). Anyone donating at that time was likely thinking that's what the money would be used for. I'm not sure what the donation links looked like and whether there were options to restrict donations, but if there wasn't an option to restrict, most people probably thought their money was going to the charity this person was advertising on stream. Asmon is right in that this isn't rocket science. You give money to an organization for a specific purpose. It is then the responsibility of the organization to use that money in accordance with the donors wishes. I've been searching around trying to find a limitation on how long a non-profit can hold money before donating to the designated charity and can't find anything. I will say though if a person is taking a tax write-off in the year of donation, unless specified by the donor, "hold my $5 for 10 years then donate the money", the non-profit should probably donate the funds within the year. I do find it odd that this person was raising a ton of money for a specific purposes, but had not thought about which organization to actually donate the money to. Then to take as long as they did to actually donate the money is strange. Sounds like this person is mostly just incompetent when it comes to non-profit operations and how donations work. Probably for the best that he stepped down.
Thanks for the info! Very informational. If you still haven't passed the exam yet I wish you best of luck!
Total BS, he forged thank you notes, lied constantly, used it to his benefit etc… This is fraud 1/1
I work for a 501c3. You are absolutely correct how restricted/unrestricted funding works. Open Hand ONLY facilitates UNRESTRICTED funding donations through their website and EFT software they use. The twitch events force Open Hand to comply with restricted funding and that money can't go anywhere outside of the restriction. That is why they sat on it for 10 years. Funny thing about 501c3 finances is, after a certain amount of time, idle funds can be reallocated to other projects/programs that the foundation has through a board vote and transparency compliance. The golf event only raises money for UNRESTRICTED funding. Most of the general public have no idea how complex 501c3 finance is. It would not surprise me at all if their plan was to sit on that money until Jirard was done with his RUclips/Influencer career ride off into the sunset and use that money as an additional nest egg... That's just me speculating though.
This isnt an issue of time limits when talking about charity fraud. The man mentioned specific orgs that never recieved a cent (they should probably look into taking legal action against him). He also claimed that all donations would go to those orgs when in fact they went to hosting the events (and nothing else since nothing was donated from OpenHand).
i did the same thing as you did and tried to find the time limit and couldn't find it. I wrote a comment about how I feel on this one and am not going to repost the book report I wrote. here is the problem I see, why would anyone giving money on live streams or at a golf event put a restriction on the money? Not only that, but there are ways around moving money to non restricted status. I doubt anyone donating knew about restricting donations because it's not something you hear about.
In terms of why it took so long for it to be donated, I agree that doesn't make sense. Just like in any business' operation, the head doesn't always know what is going on unless they are given the information. How hard would it be for someone to tell him the money was going to a charity and it wasn't? Same thing with the cost of events, it sounds like the numbers he quoted were more then likely given to him and he didn't know.
The fact that he found out the money wasn't donated is plausible and in terms of accounting, the person who does theirs would have to have the information needed for expenses. Even with him stepping down, it doesn't effect what someone else in the organization might have done. I feel like people need to be looking at the people who are part of the body of the organization and their part in what has been going on. We don't have all of the facts because he never talked about how much information he was really given,
it only took people hounding him to do it. this isnt him doing the right thing, this is him trying to save face.
DO NOT GIVE THIS GUY A CENT EVER AGAIN
He will never be a RUclipsr again, after this he will never recover his channel he’s done.
no problem for me nevcer goes to twitch to@@bludragon77
@@bludragon77doubt it, as long as he keeps pumping out videos fans of him will return. It always seems to happen
I never did or will, but don't tell people what to do.
@@fruitsalad1181 not really... There's some youtubers who have been trying to do that very thing and failing every step of the way, illuminaughtii being one I can think of off hand. She's been outright ignoring things and continues to crank out videos, but the viewership has plummeted severely. Her videos used to get something around 300k to 1million views, and now top off at around 50k at most... As someone who's helped people kick off their youtube careers, I can tell you the difference in income for her is probably enormous, as a friend of mine gets on average 20k views on his videos, and only makes a few hundred dollars per month off it.
"We donated all of the money we admitted to having received!"
*golf claps*
"We donated *some* of the money we admitted to having received!"
you report how much makes it to the cuase, not the administration fees of the transfer@@MasterJack2
The amount Open Hands say they had in the tax document also seemed to exclude bits, superchats and subs. Jirard said they were going to factor in those sources as well. The reason the amount is 600K is because they donated before the follow-up videos showed that this shouldn't be the low ball estimate anymore.
@@1981troyboyyou do gotta take into account costs for operations. We still don't have the whole picture
Cost of operation is part of the filing and if they said the cost of operation is that high... why wasn't it reported? Tax filings does not calculate for "profit" on the Revenue and expense line. You report the entire dollar amount you made, without accounting for the costs because there's a separate line for costs themselves and they should be itemized to describe what each cost is about/for. @@Blighted_Ashes
Still missing money. None of the merch, golf shit, subscription that he claimed will go to charity are are exempt under Qualified Sponsorship. He needs to get investigated.
If they do get investigated and find no wrongdoing I wonder how many people will accept that. The effect they've had with their videos is clear.
Even if people don't accept that, they have the clearance and backing document that says they didn't. So the people who won't believe that afterwards are no consequence.@@Haruka_May
@@Haruka_MayI'd be surprised but I spose he wouldn't be as big a scumbag as when he doesn't, because even blind Freddy can see this ain't clean
This should be pinned. Not only this stuff but the fact his own personal stature grew BECAUSE the charity grew. I'd also like to know if he ever sold any personal merch at those events. (I don't know if he has any I just assume he does because he's a streamer / RUclipsr)
@@Haruka_May if that happened there is still the issue of the morals behind lying and he should at least be shamed for lying for at least a year if not 2 years though I highly dought thats all that happened but without any evdicne of the bank account in question can't say
“Our lawyers, whom we pay to argue that we did nothing wrong, said we did nothing wrong. So obviously we did nothing wrong”
Lmfao
Can totally relate to this guy. My grandma died of cancer when I was young and I totally had the liquid cash lying around at 14 years old to start a tax exempt non profit that shell games peoples money for 10 years on a whim. Feel sorry for me and my trust fund I used to set up an apparatus to steal your money. Because my grandma died.
“At no point in my life on this planet have I ever been caught committing a crime” doesn’t mean nothing happened. Also I don’t think major incompetence/negligence is a get out of jail free card, his credibility is completely gone in my eyes
"Nobody ever caught me" is biggest red flag ever. The very essence of "suspicious". It's not a proof of innocence, it's a claim of being smart enough to avoid law and that there should be at least some basic level investigation if anything fishy has happened around him.
Being negligent/stupid is not valid reason to not do the one thing he was supposed to with the money, donate it.
Jack the Ripper never got caught. I guess he’s innocent
It is not incompetence or negligence either. It's so obviously malicious. He himself said that he found out about it not being donated in 2021, now he comes out here saying the plan was to make a restricted donation all along, while in call with karl and muta, he says that when he found out, he wasn't happy and said it was "not cool". all while deliberately comitting charity fraud by saying he worked with charities. And to be clear, the notion that his speech in the past does not directly say he has donated to these charities is also false, he said stated, wholeheartedly, that the open hand foundation was "THE MAIN FUNDING" for the university of San Francisco, that literally means they have funded them, not only that, but they are the biggest funding for them.
@@Seraph-pw6ftthat guy was a model citizen
He prolly should have ran a house for battered wives to find shelter from abusive husbands, he ws such a good guy
The fact they said "we are working with..." and they were not, means it was fraud
It’s fraud because he’s doing it to con people into donating to them, and it didn’t happen here or there it was happening all the time. Basically every charity event including Indy land events.
Muta: "This guy's thing seems shady. I'm not saying it is, but someone should look into it."
Jirard: "You can't say that! I'm suing you!"
@TiagitoP It didn't seem to me that the attack was written by the same person/people as the rest of the response. I get the sense he went off script for that part.
He comes around as such a dick... That's not a "I'm sorry I fked up video", it's a "we gonna take you to court of you talk badly about us" video.
they better call saul goodman then
Man's "donation timeline" is like Elder Scrolls 6 release timeline
Seeing him getting mad and defensive at how this is tarnishing his family's name reminded me of a quote from Oppenheimer.
"You don't get to commit sin and then ask all of us to feel sorry for you when there are consequences."
This. The takes on twitter have been wild. Acting like this basic youtube apology style crap absolves him of all wrongdoing.
But that isn't entirely Oppenheimer's fault. He was just a man doing research and trying to make a living, getting his career and doing his job. It's the higher ups and the government, and the overall country that decided to use him for weapons of mass destruction. He didn't set out to bomb an entire country. He was always a pawn, it's the system and the government, not the man trying to earn a living and doing what he loves.
And as a side note: You can say that what the US did was justified and something we HAD to do. As Japan showed absolutely no signs of stopping and were going to continue their war-crusade, evident by their planned bubonic plague attack on the US that was only stopped BECAUSE of the bombings. If you ask me Japan needed to be stopped, because they refused to back down and kept fighting back. And the US did just that, stopped them and there hasn't been a war since, and it's been almost a century since.
@@gasaiyuno6021Umm… there’s still wars going on in a lot of places everyday as we speak
@@gasaiyuno6021 I'm sorry but that's the biggest load I've ever heard. There's been plenty of wars, gulf war, Vietnam, Korea, Ukraine and Russia, Iraq War. The only reason Japan has been so passive since WW2 was because they're not allowed to have a standing army, not because of the bombs.
Secondly Oppenheimer didn't care about human life, and to say "He was just a man doing research" is complete bunk too. In 1943 he helped Fermi devise a plan to poison German soldier's food supply with radioactive material. His response to this inquiry was to make sure they used enough to swiftly kill them so no one would catch on, not because he didn't want them to suffer, but fearing it wouldn't work without a large enough supply. In fact he stated they shouldn't go through with it unless they could kill at least half a million people doing so.
I'm also sorry to inform you that he was originally hire by the government to make a gun style weapon, and he informed the US government that bombs were the way to kill the most people possible.
Oppenheimer had no problems with death or people being killed by his creation, he was an incredibly pessimistic person, and openly stated that all humans were capable of doing was killing one another.
"Optimists think that this is the best of all possible worlds; pessimists fear they are right." ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer
@@gasaiyuno6021 Not gonna argue with your opinion on US using atomic bombs against Japan, but this "there hasn't been a war since"... like, did you mistype or something? 😅
So he's going for the "I'm not a bad guy, just unfathomably stupid" defense
Didn’t work for SBF
But it'll probably work for him, his fanbase is loving it and everyone's fogotten he lied about supporting several several charities for nine years. @@OOzd95
That was the only possible outcome, if not a criminal for fraud just extremely stupid. However that card does not play well if he wants to sue Karl and Mutahar
@@OOzd95What's SBF?
SBF was tye crypto acammer who stole 100s of millions of dollars.
The thing is that the golf expenses were declared, but were pretty small yet the revenue does not line up. You don't get the exclude the expenses from your declaration to lower the revenue being declared which is what it seems they've been doing.
Edit: There will be no one suing anyone. Discovery is a bitch and that would give the defendants access to ALL of the financials since 2014 for EVERYTHING related to Open Hands.. No effing way anyone involved in Open Hand wants that happening.
Yeah. Plus, they'd just put Jirard on the stand and show the incriminating clips. "This you? You said this? Yes or no." Discovery on top of *that* level of blatant fraud? That's a civil suit that'd end with the plaintiff catching a sentence. Reminds me of the one where Trump didn't actually end up suing a guy who said Trump was not a billionaire. To Discovery! 🍻 Not just a cable channel!
I feel the threat of a lawsuit undermines any attempt at an actual apology
Yeah. Less of an "I'm sorry for what I did" and more of an "I'm sorry I got caught"
I don't think he apologized. It was more of a "sorry that you misunderstood what happened. I didn't do anything wrong, but I can be better at communicating in the future."
@@befru yeah the video is filled with fauxpologies but no real apology. "I'm sorry YOU misunderstood what I meant"
59:38 when he’s doing his “I’m angry he scared of me face” I was dying laughing his acting skills are subpar at best.
Same lol.. it seems very put-on and coached. The fact that the video is then followed up with some wannabe heartwarming or insightful bit tacked on he must have realized ending the video with such a pissed off almost comically plastered on “angy face” was a bad look… woof
AMGER... PROTECT SELF... fade to black cut... positive vibes! Wholesome!
It's a manipulation tactic.
This was less an apology and more an attempt to look sorry (talking at length about his poor dead sick mom) and then legally threatening people talking about this situation, which is never a good look.
We all already knew the story with his mom. The only reason to bring it up is to generate sympathy. And then he launches into angry baseless threats.
you could hear the rage in his voice that he's been found out and has to go through this. I really don't know what the heck he thinks he's salvaging. No one will work with him ever again. His charity work is done for life.
@@ClayMann Dude this is weird parasocial nonsense, you don't know for sure what's going on in his head
@@Rex-qf7en Nothing parasocial about being able to hear someone's tone of voice my guy, I think you're projecting.
The legal definition of charity fraud per LegalMatch. Please note the final sentence about "dishonest or inflated claims": Charity fraud is when someone takes advantage of a charitable or non-profit organization for their own personal gain. Fraud is defined as intentional deception or misrepresentation made for personal gain. Defrauding a charity can be anything from falsely claiming to be a victim of the disaster in order to get money from the charity, to stealing donations from the collection tin, to setting up a fake charity and pocketing the donations.
Fraudulent activity can also occur when people make dishonest or inflated claims about how much money they have raised or how much it has helped the cause.
He clarified nothing in this video. All the time he took to respond and came out with a wet fart.
Was it a Eric Swallowswell type fart, a Wendy’s Value Meal Williams, or a John “My Gas is Scary” Kerry level fart?
@dantheanimator5072 it was Dr Disrespect hot kaka diarrhea infused with a Karen spurt.
its a script written by his lawyers
Seems pretty clear to me.. He says the were just saving the money to donate one huge sum.. Not that complicated.. I'm not saying he should have done that but its highly unlikely they were illegally using that money
he did clarify he's a liar and added new lies to this list that will be used as evidence should this end up in court. I'm hoping it will because I hate people who prey on things like their dead mothers memory and peoples kindness wanting to donate to things personal to them.
10 years later he remembered to donate the money from a charity event he has every year, amazing. A truly wonderful human being.
He donated the money after he was called out. Sounds shady to me
@@therealvideogamejunkie That's because it is shady
There is a name for scam baiting on your own misfortune… it’s sad; just because he’s a douche bag, doesn’t mean he’s that level of d-bag. Likely unprovable short of a confession.
@Poooppoop22 totally irrelevant buddy.
@@Poooppoop22 what point are you trying to make?.. that money donated was never his to begin with, it was made up of donations from his generous viewers and sponsors over a decade, money which is now worth substantially less than it would have been had it been donated when Jirard himself claimed it had been!... as it stands, Jirard himself has donated a negative amount out of his own pocket.
a fun little quirk is he spends like half an hour justifying his admin expenses, but the crux of his argument is that he didnt want to cover admin expenses with the donation.
Muta's new response to Jirard's is a logical dismantle and beat down. Jirard essentially shows no receipts, email chains, and or bank statements that prove his points and Muta points that out and questions The Open Hand documents that Jirar provides and notices another weird discrepancy. They essentially forgot too tick boxes for 7 years and forgot to switch to another type of tax filing form even though they received an IRS letter that says they acknowledge and agreed to it.
He doesn't even provide proof of anything of where the golf money went. I think Jirard and his family really want that issue swept under the rug.
He and his "charity" should still be investigated
"I did nothing wrong. I'm the victim, and everyone who pointed this all out is malicious and I will destroy them"
Thanks Illuminaughtii 2, very cool.
So... he is someone ex and try to take someone house next right?
@@mukaonline3your point?
@@Kain5th you didnt know illuminaughty didnt you.
@@mukaonline3 yes i know all about her shenanigans
@@Kain5th then op call him illuminati 2 and im meme about its thats is my point... so?
600K 10 years ago would have stretched much further. He didn't account at all for value lost
by my basic accounting he's short 400k, 500k plus if you include the loss of value over 10 years. So I do care about the golf money because that racks up fast and was getting bigger each year. It was also in some way related to how they were hiding money in general and I'm convinced were talking about a million dollars of fraud here that the family were using. It took them a few weeks to get 600k out there donated to some charity they'd never mentioned one time. I suspect the charities they pretended to have given to already refused to talk to them when they eventually called to donate some of the money, hence a completely new random charity.
Bro shoulda tripled that by now in a fund.
They didn't have 600k a decade ago. If they had made annual donations based on what they've earned from the events, both the golf tournament and Indieland, the value of the amounts would have exceeded what they let sit on their account for a decade and donated recently. Which I guess does support your argument, but hey, inb4 there's that guy who tries to be so technical about it
@@mmrchivewell lets say he had 200k in 2019 (Im just assuming from 2020 to 2023 they got 400k+), that would be 244k in 2023, using the us gov website that asmon also use
Even not accounting the monetary differences imagine the possibility of IMPROVING LIVES for a 100k a year. That his foundation held.
A likelihood of a cure being found during that time is extraordinarily rare, but QoL is just as important for people experiencing dementia.
"I'm here today to provide clarity and transparency"
**Proceeds to do exactly NOT that**
Was looking up whether devs that had their games shown on indieland had any thoughts or statements about the thing and one of the links went to the completionist subreddit, which has been "temporarily privated". Speaking of privacy, 'someone' in the sticky hand foundation made a privacy complaint on Karl's video. These are not the actions of innocent people.
He never explained why it took him 10 years to donate. He didnt give examples of why it would take ten years, or show us any other charities that took 10 years to donate. He basically said "i didnt do anything illegal yet"
He probably wanted to wait until he had a million in the bank to live off the interest and cash it out through some kind of loophole. Or create a new charity and donate to himself somehow.
The problem is that if you have a charity and close it, you have to donate it to another charity or give it to the government. In order for him to give the money to a new charity it would have to be setup in advance and have the same classification. Another option would be if someone were to set up another charity and they have a merger.
There is a catch that can't be avoided. If someone made a restricted donation, they have to give it back to the donor if the charity dissolves.
In the state of California, the Attorney General is involved in the process of a merger or closing of a charity. So it's possible that if they tried to create another charity to merge with, this merger may not go through.
Its good for him that after 10 years he finally remembered to donate the money after he was called out for it. He should still be investigated by the government for how much did he possibly pocketed from the golf events and other donations.
just don't forget he is 400k short. Its not all the money because I don't think they have that as cash.
Yeah the golf events are sus
He should get checked up for dementia
I think over 10 years, you'd make some serious interest returns as well.
Even crazier is the fact that after 5 years of donating money from Indieland, he decides, after having been caught not donating the money, that in the future he won't be donating the money made from indieland.
Personally it makes it seem like his plan was the pocket the money all along but got caught.
His mother suffered for 15 years. So he raised this money in her honor and didn't donate it for 10 years? That money could have been used to save someone else's mother within that time frame. If he truly cared about the cause why would you wait this long? Everything this man is disgusts me. What a way to honor your mother bro.
Really good point
He didn’t care. His mother’s illness has always been a tool to illicit sympathy and donations.
Lost two loved ones with this disease, so yeah. It’s real personal for myself.
Tell us you know nothing about this topic without telling us you know nothing about this topic.
@@DakotaActuallyshow me one lie In His comment.
It's funny how comically angry he looks. Scowling, furrowed brow, oh boy he's steamin'. He's piping mad at that gosh dang Mutahar and Karl for calling him out for misleading people, he's furious and they'll PAY. 😤😡🤬
the funniest thing about that is you know Muta and Karl are laughing their asses off watching this. They took legal advice and were super careful about how they phrased things until the golf charity fraud where it was just so obvious they were all scamming. All Jirard has to look forward to can be seen in James Somertons case. That's his future. Delete everything online and GTFO. That's his best case scenario. Worst is the whole family are going to prison.
Hes furious he just had to pay 600k cause he got exposed.
@@ClayMannLol calm down, none of that's happening to him. Dude's just gonna keep making videos or stop for a while at most.
Because he knows he's very close to losing his income from being internet famous.
@@ClayMann A quibble: super-careful would have involved a little more care in the titles and thumbnails... There's a reason this sort of thing is normally done with a question mark at the end, or an "allegedly". It doesn't mean there's enough of a case for Jirard to *win*. I don't think it'd go super-well for him to actually take it to court, since... well... he'd have to bring *all* the receipts, and he'd have to address the lies. But to intimidate and try to coerce a settlement (which could just be an apology)... it's enough that it wouldn't get laughed out of court.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree, this Christmas smells like cooked goose.
Jirard: "My Mom always had this saying, "An open hand is always full."
Asmongold "It is always full, just like the bank account for the charity."
That had me in stitches for awhile. XD
59:49
this video is on point. The problem here is the fact that people were mislead into donating for ten years thinking their money was going somewhere… that’s it
That's the main issue. Right now it doesn't matter if it was untouched in a bank account, or if the family used it for their own personal use. It's a scam either way.
The amount of creators dismissing this as simple drama is insane
Yea man they should all see it as complex drama
@@45noop they should see it as crime
What creators?
@@TopOfAllWorlds but it's not, so they don't
@@45noop Multiversal drama, if you will.
Started watching this channel a couple years ago thinking it was a meme. Asmon I appreciate you being a real one don't stop bro!
Its been about a year for me and I really enjoy it.
Same, sometimes he still is a meme lol but still love him as a creator. Only problem I’ve not been ok with so far is when he bans ppl who just disagree with him. Not the one’s obviously being trolls but just regular ppl who just don’t agree w him and he bans them. A lil off putting you shouldn’t want everyone watching you to be yes men. But other than that it’s been a fun ride :) I loved doing the whole Pax dei thing seriously a time I won’t forget 🤘🏾👌🏾
Asmon is the GOAT
So based, so clever, so funny
Best RUclipsr by a stretch
@@MACHOx3_theRealestateGamecat You hit the nail on the head, that’s also my only real gripe with Asmon. Well put
This has been the biggest character flip for me. I was very much willing to give the benefit of the doubt in the first video, but damn, I'm convinced that Jirard the Completionist is actually a disgusting monster.
Makes him seem so abstract. To me he is just a very regular, human criminal.
Well, yeah. Look at his face.
This is one of the reason why I don't like the idea of charity organizations, because there's often corruption, missmanagement, or both. Several known cases of people running with the money, embezling it and even those that donate, it's often like 1 or 2 cents per main currency that they receive, in this case, dollars. That's ignoring the fact that I always point out why I don't like charities as a principle, it's literally the job of the governments to make sure those issues are taken care of, and they are paid through taxes to do so, pushing that into other organizations is telling the govs that what they are doing by not doing their job properly is allowable.
I should add, that this wasn't just a impulse decision from me watching an Asmon video. I was genuinely curious, so I went looking through the subreddit, twitter, youtube, old vods, and the previous controversy with Greg. The signs of what he's really like in private were enough to convince me. It's a shame. I was there in his first few videos recommending games to play and enjoying it like anyone else. Just oblivious to it all.
What pisses me off is that he keeps trying to use what happened to his mother to gain sympathy votes. Like everything that happened to her you think he would be donating this money to the respectful charities immediately but he held onto it for 10 years without donating it until he was found out. This just feels like a slap in the face to his mom and her memory
Two things can be true here: 1. He made the donation because of the pressure. 2. The charitable donation was probably made in anticipation of the audit that is almost certainly coming.
The whole response is so tone-deaf. A 2014 audit doesn't help to clear allegations made post-2014, the legal threat against the guys who caught a serious ethical problem, and the back-and-forth between passion and blatant lawyer script. This was super odd.
Also, churches regularly receive restricted donations - there's no threshold at all. But like all charities, funds can get moved around as long as there are unrestricted funds. If there are too many restricted donations, all the unrestricted donations go to upkeep. If they are all unrestricted donations, charities get the donation minus the upkeep. The designation is silly from and accounting standpoint..
Keep in mind I'm not a professional and this is only from several hours of research I did for a comment for another channel. And sorry for the book report.
Restricted funds can be moved around, if for example the charity contacts the donor and asks if they can reallocate the funds for something else. Let's say that a charity is trying to raise 10k for a new roof or something else that is needed. So a donor says that they are donating xyz to be donated for that cause. They can say that if they exceed the 10k, any money left over would go to other uses. They could also say that any money donated could be moved to a different fund for other purposes.
However, if a gift is given without the charity raising funds for a reason and the person donates with a restriction they have options. One of which is to not accept the donation. They do also have the right to ask if the money could be used else where, where it could be used for things that are needed. In this case, I don't think anyone would have made a restricted donation. Since you have money being raised from various events and it doesn't sound like there was an option to donate that way.
Here is one people get wrong, and it's all based off of wording. Depending on how you advertise the event, you can take money to cover expenses. There is another issue, I could not find anything stating a time frame for when the donations have to be released.
Since he is in the state of California, you can look up Rob Bonta who is the state attorney general and his site does have different avenues that can be used to file a complaint. There is a phone number for the Better Business Bureau and Department of Consumer Affairs. There is a form that can be filled out and mailed in via email or snail mail. From what I read, it can take them time to get to the complaint or it may be sent to someone else to investigate it. The other option is to look up the IRS information for the office in Dallas, Texas.
In terms of designation for restrictions, that one is iffy at best. There is a reason they have to list it, but for the life of me I can't remember. If I remember correctly, it's based on how the donation was made. If the donation was made in the form of a stock or other option where money can be pulled from, you are required to keep documentation for it.
Like I said, I'm not an expert here and this is all based off of research. Honestly, in a case like this there should have been someone reviewing the information provided when filling with the irs. Depending on who filled the taxes is another matter on how it would be looked at. He never said if they have an accountant file the the returns or if it's a family member. In regards to an audit, normally those aren't done unless there are complaints made and they decide to look into it. An audit may not be done by the irs itself, but rather an outside accountant. In all honesty, that's not something I'm going to dig into because there are so many procedures it's not funny.
I'm going to guess that they might look into the expenses more then anything else. If they pass the audit, I honestly don't know how they would prove the claims of embezzlement. I'm guessing they would notice any discrepancies if they were to review the financial statements at the time of the review to see what the expenses were. The other part is there is no way to know when an audit will be done or how. If there was anything noticed by the irs that sent up a red flag, the organization should have been audited by now. They can go back 3 years or more depending on what they find.
I do think, if there is any proof of theft, or false information given on the returns that the entire organization should be held accountable, not just Jirard. Not all heads of companies or groups know everything that is going on. If someone told him that the money was going to a cause, he would say that because he would believe it to be true. If he found out money wasn't being given to charities he was told they were, he would have to work with others in the group to find out what was going on and how to fix it.
One problem is that if an audit is done, someone from the group would have to report the findings. If legal action is taken, that is something that would more then likely be released in the state itself, since I'm sure that would be level we are looking at for any charges if theft was found. I don't like the fact that it took so long for the money to be released, but there is information that is missing that we need to know before we can pass judgement.
I always like Asmongold comments on these sort of things cause he helps so much taking the argument apart to avoid fallacies and make things that sound ok actually show that it's deceive. It gives good perspective.
Dude calls himself the completionist, can't even complete a donation. 😮
Need to know what else he's faking in his life
"I'm sorry for collecting money under false pretenses and that we got caught, and we had to donate it, I'm also sorry that my father runs a golf tournament with important sponsors while using my charity's name and branding and yet that money is NOWHERE TO BE FOUND! oh and if you keep meddling in my [very legal affairs] I will sue you =D"
BEST
APOLOGY
E V E R !!!!
The money was there the whole time.... wtf is wrong with you
@@xRIPx86the money from the golf events is still missing
Money from the golf tournament is not accounted for.@@xRIPx86
@@xRIPx86 that was never proven,,, you claim stuff, who said the money was not taken from another accents? well stop defending stuff you dont understand
@@xRIPx86have you ever heard inflation,over the years the moneys from donation value less and if Jirad wasn't exposed,he would have keep the money longer and make the situation worse.
Like finally found a trustworthy charity a week after exposed by Karl and Muta after 10 years? What a huge concidence that is and he threaten to sue them which is a stupid idea mind you bc not only if he would waste alot of money and if he loses,he would have to pay them back
If you had all those expenses in your charity, why aren't they in your tax filings? Someone had time for admin cost but putting down expenses and income is to hard?
Also did he receive tax right offs for the charity? 🤔
He doesn't want anyone to know where that went, or where the money went that wasn't made just from direct charity donations.
Its crazy how he basically describes his charity as one the charities he wouldn't donate to.
As someone who has taken film acting classes, and knowing what it's like to have to talk TO a camera. Staring at the camera as intensely as he does, shows that he's reading a script, or reciting something he's been practicing for a long time. Natural talking, and speech processing, makes your eyes move near CONSTANTLY. If you're not scripted at all, you'll look up and right when you think about what you want to say next. If you're lying, you're going to look up and left. His eyes stay on the camera. Not moving. I don't believe a word he's saying.
Good point. Nobody really calls out the fact that he's reading a script and how unauthentic it feels. A scripted speech means that he has spent hours manipulating all the information and wording so that he can make himself look as good as possible.
While i agree with your overall argument, i would suggest you not use the "looking x direction for lies" example, it has been completly disproven by everyone from neurologists to the FBI.
I think it's pretty obvious he's reading a script, and I'm not really sure why you think he wouldn't in a situation as legally tenuous as this.
Past few weeks he apparently found a charity but 10 years?!?
Dude only did this because of whistleblowers and lighting a fire under his ass
Exactly. Imagine if it wasnt brought to light. He (and the other board members) could have kept it rolling and saved up a nice little retirement.
@@bluemyst42 Yeah, the whole situation seems like they were waiting until the money hit a threshold and then it was going to vanish into random bank accounts.
He didn't even "find" one, he donated the whole 600K chunk to the primary charity he always talked about on the events. Forgetting that he had talked about multiple different charities previous, his claim that they weren't donating where they said so that they could find a more suitable charity just straight up is ostensibly untrue now.
The funny/sad thing is even if he couldnt find a charity (which as someone who works with elderly dimentia patients i can tell you there are literally hundreds if not thousands of), then he could just literally donate it towards a research grant which actually would get the near full amount towards actual research instead of spliting it with overhead costs that take upwards of 60% of the amount donated, or literally just donate it to your local nursing home because they absolutely need it. This whole thing irritates me on a personal level because I see every day how awful of a desease dimentia is and for this asshole to just pocket money intented for helping cure or just help people afflicted with it is honestly digusting, and frankly this response just shows that Jirard's carrer is most likely over as once you lose your audiences trust its almost impossible to earn it back.
It would be a tragic twist or irony if this whole incident forced Jirard to donate the money quickly, and he ended up donating it to a scam charity (which most usually are).
Takes and Holds money for 10 years because they couldn't find a suitable donor
Gets called out
Finds suitable donor in 2 weeks
HMMMMM
I mean people literally demanded him to donate as soon as possible asmongold included.
@@emperorborgpalpatine Yeah, because he should've donated it YEARS ago. But if what he claimed was actually true, then he wouldn't have immediately donated the money.
“She battled with this for 15 years” and you wanted them to battle it for 10 😂
Nah he was just trying to match the length of time his mom was sick for before he got caught 💀
The golf event matters because it establishes a pattern of practice and behavior and shows it’s not just gamer drama and branches to other communities.
The golf proceeds were supposed to go to the open hand foundation,it was on the advertising, as well as merch and any other proceeds from indie land. The tax statements even show $55,000 more than what was donated. That doesn't even count the proceeds from the 2023 indieland. There is a lot of missing money in the hundreds of thousands. They also said they would take nothing from the purchases and donations. He said they didn't want any money to go to administrative costs but took those for their own company. It's all very shady.
It's just worse fraud on his part. The charity returns are so god damn basic for the amount of fundraisers they had. Everything needed to be broken down if someone made x donation and any of that went to any kind of expense but there's barely anything on what he reported.
“Gross negligence” is the legal term. But otherwise, Asmon is mostly correct. Once negligence reaches a certain level, a person may be liable for the same kind of punitive damages available for an intentional tort (like fraud).
I'm still mostly at the beginning, but all Asmon has done is played stupid and defended him so far
What about when a person increases their personal fame because they milked the fame of the charity. He used the growth of the "charity" to increase his own personal income.
@@bsx132in a civil case, that would be evidence towards proving intentional fraud. I don’t do crim law much, but if he were prosecuted that would also be evidence towards his intent.
If this is gross negligence I’d hate to see disgusting negligence
I would want LegalEagel to react to this whole situation.
I think you mean Rekieta Law.
Either would work
Rekieta Law better
@@Ditendo64 Sorry before today never heard of this channel, I don't mind either as long as they can provide a viewpoint from laws perspective.
@@Ditendo64honestly either might work. Legal Eagle has bigger reach but he definitely isn't a lawyer who specializes in criminal law but he was a corporate lawyer who primarily dealt with typical corporate issues (copyright, taxes, mergers, etc.) so we might get insights from that side of things. Rekieta Law is a lawyer who dealt with criminal cases and is more knowledgeable in the criminal side of the law.
I'll let the legal system sift this one out. He has shifted from surprise to outrage in a way that was clearly legally advised. It made a case for legal protections but ultimately felt void of understanding for the blowback. At the end of the day its not really for me to judge so I won't but it's juicy to watch!
This is one of those things where I'd actually prefer people not talk about this and let it go to court without hounding anybody and having pitchforks and torches on their public record.
In my opinion, everyone should step back and let them ruin their own lives by getting found guilty in court. I wouldn't wanna be seen in an angry mob of people, basically witch-hunting a person on the internet, no matter if they deserve it or not...plus, there's better ways to spend time.
i do agree. the problem with everyone speculating and arm chair lawyering is it can more often then not ruin people even if they did nothing wrong, and at the same time there is no shortage of people that want to see people suffer and drown simply because they are more successful.
did they tank their credibility? sure, but that doesn't mean they are guilty. sadly, even if they are found Innocent, people are going to try and claim they are still guilty.
This whole video sounded scripted by his lawyers lol. We probably won't be getting any more info about this whole thing unless it goes to court
@@Sniperbear13 Technically, they are guilty, and they confessed to it. The legal definition of Charity Fraud includes "falsely claiming to be affiliated with a legitimate charity in order to solicit donations", and Jirard did do that. That doesn't mean he stole money, that's another form of Charity Fraud ("Diverting funds raised for charitable causes to personal use"), and nobody should assume he has engaged in that. I fully agree, no pitchforks should be wielded, they just need to get audited to see the extent of what happened, as he failed to produce any receipts and as you pointed out, he did tank his credibility, so he should not be taken at face value on his claims
It's pretty common that the legal system fails with this kind of stuff. I'm Canadian and the amount of times our prime minister has gotten away with various fraud charges is astounding. Now, this guy isn't on the same power level as my prime minister but his apology speech sounds eerily familiar. This guy's morally guilty if not legally.
I'm not an everyday watcher of you Asmon, but wanted to see your take on this. It is very refreshing to see your perspective, it really makes me look at myself and realise I wasn't really looking at this situation like Jirard is a person. Like - I totally agree that he probably didn't intend to make a getaway with the money or anything. I do think he has handled this WHOLE situation very poorly, but at the end of the day he is just a person, and is probably under a TONNE of pressure legally, socially and also from his family which most people probably aren't thinking about. More of his family members are also at fault, but, Jirard is the only one super super public. I wonder what most onlookers would have done if they 'found' themselves in this situation. His response was a bit pathetic though, but I can't help it is all his thoughts, he would've had lots of people writing the script and stuff. He lit the fire, but at the end of the day I do feel a little bad for him, I'm glad the money was donated :)
Two different classifications of donations.
Unrestricted: comes from anywhere and can go anywhere.
They wanted to pool all of the Unrestricted donations and then make a bulk donation as a Restricted donation, which is what I think he eventually did.
Since the charity (Open Hand) was run by his family, they really had no personal overhead. But they didn't want the bulk donation to evaporate in Admin costs by some large charity, so he just never got around to choosing the charity to make their Restricted donation.
So he's using that as an excuse (at least in part) for why he wasn't timely.
But it's likely that the family, however unintentionally, broke some laws regarding misrepresentation of charitable funds.
It's good that they didn't just up and steal the cash, but negligence can still run afoul of the law. Just mismanagement, really. But for almost a decade? Not a good look, at a minimum.
His father's management of the golf tournament, who knows. That's up to the IRS to sort out. But I don't think Jirard was involved with the tourney.
But, yeah, he fk'd up, but it doesn't appear that he used the charity as a personal piggy bank - unlike some (well, just one) ex presidents....
Him being mad at Muta and Karl is wild. He claimed to giving money, but never gave it until Karl and Muta made it public. He just needs to go away and his family should never run a charity.
Heres my take on this.
He got caught
He went silent at the advice of attorneys
Attorneys advised him to take the course of action of immediately donating it and then providing proof it was donated. Malicious? Idk. I believe to a degree it was because theres no way it couldnt be after 10 years!
Also its really strange that the organization he donated to the AFTD, came out with a front page news post thanking them specifically for the "gift", when nowhere in their news reel going back years they have mentioned any donations made to them, almost like it was some sort of hastily organized quid pro quo arrangement in order to receive the money.
While him and his other friends on the board were also collecting an unknown amount of 'Administrative fees' on it year after year.
It's malicious, even if he didn't spend a single cent from the charity, he used the charity for his own personal fame which garnered him personal income.
@@m4nt1c0r3s Shit... that might be why it took weeks. They were shopping for a charity that'd post about it.
The completionists lawyers responded through jirard
he's the patsy, the whole family are in on it but we don't hear jack sh*t from them. That will all change when they all end up named in court.
Well, somebody had to after weeks
In his Indieland charity streams he clearly said all donations, bits super chats etc will go to charity and "NONE" will b used for anything else so he did mislead people
I love how he threatens to sue people for using publicly available information about his charity to check whether he was lying. Dude's delusional. I hope he's ready for the audit, it's definitely coming. Making a restricted donation doesn't mean you get to keep the money without donating for 10 years. That's complete bullshit.
He's screwed me and a few other big doners are talking to lawyers as we donated because it was going to a specific charity and he lied we are now looking into legally taking this to court for fraud.
Good. More power to ya, and I hope you can find some interesting details in the discovery portion to spice up your (hopefully inevitable) victory celebration.🤔Well, maybe not "celebration". But whatever's applicable.
Good! I honestly feel like anyone that donated a significant amount of money that has the means of taking Jirard to task (essentially "FU" money) should do so.
Good. He needs to realise his actions have consequences
When Jirard lies his beard gets longer.
Underrated comment.
He's like Pinocchio but every time he lies, his beard gets longer.
The completionist failed to complete a donation. The irony.
People will always assume the scam was simply to hold onto the money and see what happened. As they should. He was clean busted.
Thats my thinking. I figure he was sitting on that egg for the day that people forgot about the fund raising and he lost the limelight, and then he taps into for a nice little retirement.
@@bluemyst42 I don't think it was him alone. I think this was a team effort.
They could make returns on just holding the money, and then when they get caught, they donate the original amount, covering their asses. That's what I'd do at least, if I was trying to be a scumbag.
If you had an interest rate of 7.2%, over ten years, they've doubled the money, essentially losing nothing. Now it mightn't be that high, so maybe it hasn't doubled fully, but 50% extra isn't off thr table. If you can keep it going for a couple decades, suddenly you've made 3 times more off just holding it than you need to donate.
@@bibsp3556that's honestly his biggest fuck up. Just letting that money sit around doing nothing was stupid. If you're gonna steal from everyone, at least put in a little effort
@@JACpotatos But then he wouldn't be able to play the "oops I didn't know it wasn't donated" card
I think the innocent way of handling this would be to say thanks for pointing out the "clerical error" and say it won't happen again. If someone does this aggressive defence it will always be very sus.
Whenever I hear anyone w/ this long verbose statements and then flip things over and guilt trip u for even bothering to investigate or asking. I always think that they are the once who are in bad faith. Instead of apologizing, he flips the script almost saying that u should feel guilty for questioning him and his organization lol.
"All bits, all donations, all super chats, all RUclips memberships, basically anything that's tied to donating or subscribing in a financial way to us is going to charity we're not touching any of it."
"from twitch subscriptions and bits along with merchandise have offset some of the production costs"
So which is it?
Honestly, if there are no cases like this one, it should go to court to set precedence. Maybe then a judge can decide if this is gross incompetence and if a time limit should be amended into the law either way.
It feels like he’s tryna gain sympathy about talking his mother
Absolutely he is. Pure damage control. It’s too late to claim ignorance on his part so he’s trying to repair his character in the eyes of his viewers
True
No other reason to keep bringing it up
Eeeeh idk. He just said it as "This is why I do this", he didnt linger on it for too long.
He's been doing this for like every recent videogame review he did. Sympathy points.
Anyone who trys to tells you their a good person, is trying to convince you. Jirad didn't need to say that at the end of his video. It doesn't come of as genuine after telling everyone his sorry he lied using legalese instead of his own words.
If we learned anything from the past 15 yrs of social media, the people telling you how good and moral they are, never are. 'Good' people just do good. They don't try to convince you.
Dude was just going to sit on the money until he was pretty sure everybody forgot about it.
Being technically legal, doesn't means it is moral okay.
Facts - we see this same shady-but-legal behavior with the likes of short selling & crap that lead to the 2009 financial crisis. It’s this borderline white collar crime that is SO DISGUSTING
Here's the thing about malicious intent versus not malicious intent.
If you are constantly lying and contradicting yourself when asked about what happened to the money, that's malicious intent.
If he truly had no idea what was happening with the money and just assumed it was being donated, he would have said so.
If he never planned to donate anything until the sum reached $600K so he could make 1 big unrestricted donation, he would have said so.
There is no world where you are saying both things at once, without there being malicious intent involved.
And this is just 1 example. There are so many contradictions in everything he says, how in the hell would that not be malicious intent?
In the end it's very simple: *If he's not malicious but just incompetent, why would he be lying constantly?*
People assume its not malicious because most of the money was still there but they are forgetting about:
-The money from the golf events which were destined to charity
-The money to his twitch channel that he had to forward
-The fact that the organization is not taking any money but still paying expenses like salaries makes it a recurring income for them
It should be extremely easy from him to prove he didnt embezzle the money. Just show the bank statements that prove the money from the golf was sent or the revenue generated on his twitch channel during the event that was for good cause.
Just show any email that proves that you were unaware that the money was not being donated.
All in all zero proof was provided.
I like how he gets mad at the end cause he knows he caught and now he’s trying to flip and play victim
If that's what he was supposed to be doing at the end, my feeling is kind of ironic. The getting mad and making threats of lawsuits completely flipped my read from "This guy knows he screwed up bad and is desperately trying to save any face he can with a PR/lawyer-scripted response." to "This guy DEFINITELY has something serious to hide." . It felt to me like he totally went off script at that point. I can't see those two sections being written by the same person/people. In the realm of politics, I've seen this exact kind of confident, self-vindicating, half apology-half attack response to valid allegations/accusations frequently come before more damning evidence is found - which is shortly followed by a resignation and/or indictment. I genuinely hope, for his sake, there's nothing else to find.
The amount of people defending him on twitter...
Some could be accounts owned by whoever he hired to clean up this mess and sway public opinion. You never know these days.
Any particular industry people defending him? I dont use twitter but I want to know who is stupid enough to believe him.
@@koda7720Donation money well spent!
@@magnainsomnia Idk, I think there were some retro reviewers, but I don't watch the space so I have no idea if they are nobodies or not. Also they might just be buddies.
@@Pumciusz there are people simping for serial killers and this surprises you, especially on twitter lmao
That's the same as stealing secretly 600 000$ from a bank and 10 years later when they realize you did it you return the money and then declare: NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED
Yep this is still charity fraud and I am surprised if a lawyer was involved they let him say that
Spot on.
That was a perfect explanation!
No it's not. The only thing that was wrong as him not being up front about how and when. This entire thing is about people online getting upset (shocking!!) And nothing in the real world happened.
Sitting on isn't using.
32:58 Imagine also how much those charities needed those donations even more during Covid times. They were probably hurting like most companies were.
hey Zach, long time viewer here, never knew you lost your mom, I remember you talking about how you got her into Wow and used to farm with her, back in the day. RIP. Prayers and vibes your way brother!
There's a video he talks about it: "About my mon"
Yeah she passed away in October 2021
I said it before and I will repeat, the biggest problem was his lies, he said that he learned it for over a year (incompetence) and yet he did another event saying that it would be donated. He had over a year to fix things by coming clean and do the right thing but instead decided to keep lying and only did when he was called out.
I agree that he was not malicious, but it still morally wrong and he did defraud people that donated based on his lies
Yeah, I dunno why you wouldn't think it's malicious. I certainly think it's beyond negligence. They did PnL statements, but forgot to actually donate?
It was malicious, even if he actually never intended to spend a single cent given to the charity his own personal fame grew because the charity grew.
The "I did not intend to do anything wrong, I am just incompetent" defense. Named specific charities, did not donate to them.
In order to be a charity, you have to be charitable. Not sit on people's money for years
the concept of charity always seemed to good to be true even without all the fraud and stuff, like a local donation drop box is one thing, but idk how helpful some is without certain families signing up or so, i'd rather give someone in person five dollars rather than donating 50 dollars to some random name/organization, but too bad they can't cut out the middle man and donations made directly to individuals/families like how mr beast (i don't watch him so i'm not that knowledgeable about his channel) was able to get surgery on like 100 blind ppl or whatever
or if not, having the money going to building a full on hospital or some senior care thing to where they can stay safely as opposed to some individual adult that has to sacrifice their job to watch over their parents 24/7 so they don't wander off since there are still ppl that'd need weekly care, even though it is important to get medical research to look for a cure.
and flex about him buying all 3DS and DS games now i know where is the money came from there is no way shady mobile ads is enough to cover up that video lol
"Just because you're correct, doesn't mean you're right!" The statement gets more true everyday and i hope the completionist learns that after this missed-the-whole-point video ... sheesh
By Jirard stepping down the foundation has only lost its face. His brother Jacque and his father handle all the financial and business aspects of everything. the people who did this are still in control
You can practically see his lawyers hand up his a-hole puppeting him.
A lot of this is him trying to wash his hands of the org along with damage limitation techniques for his channel whilst burying his guilt with this vocal essay.
His use of language is incredibly manipulative.
And he uses a lot of "we intended" language which muddy's whether he did or didn't do a thing and if it was a bad thing or illegal he's obfuscating it by saying he effectively "didn't mean to"
The key issue here is no one can trust him or the org, neither can we trust any documentation provided by him or his organisation, he as, as a matter of fact, lied about donating the money initially.
He mentioned any filings that were wrong were not intentional, fraudulent or criminal- all of which literally don't matter as intention isn't a a defence to committing fraud if fraud occured; it's criminal if it's criminal, that's all that matters.
Obviously, it didn't take 10 years to donate money.
Most money would have been donated within a few months.
As for this restricted/unrestricted thing- it's a total smokescreen to hide what they've done.
Think about it, they took all that money, sat on it for years, then likely claimed yearly administration and operational fee's and possibly skimmed interest off the top of the money being sat in the account.
Even if we say it's all innocent, holding onto the money has massively deflated it's value due to increasing inflation.
So whether it's fraud or incompetence it's hurt the charitable cause, for the reason Asmon calculated, namely nearly 100k evaporated.
I am still very interested in seeing how many family members and friends are involved with the administration of the charity and any jobs, such as catering.
As Asmon said, it's very funny the accusations make the organisation suddenly donate the money if their original plan was to donate it as a large sum, yet as soon as the accusations come they donate it.
Something is wrong because the logic isn't consistent.
Basically he's saying throughout this;
"You can trust the accounts, unless they were wrong, which if they were was by accident, but then are 100% correct when it backs up our claims but if they are wrong it's not our intention but i'm leaving anyway and my family are reorganising the board, even though we did nothing wrong"
It's not a strong case.
Also him suing Karl etc might bite him in his backside because any legal case would have to delve into his and the organisations finances anyway and just suing them smacks of desperation, particularly as they wash their hands of the charity.
He's very duplicitous in his language and actions.
100%! Also, I love Asmon's instant response to "intended" is "So you didn't *do* it."
45:55 this segment just shocks me, outright refusing they did anything wrong and wanting to take legal actions for their ignorance is outright dumb
Dude literally pulls out the "I'm sorry you felt that way," crap.
Gives me Amber Herd "I pledged the money" vibes.
We didn't steal your money... we just took it and held it as long as possible until we were exposed... If if wasn't for those darn kids we would have gotten away with it.
This guy most likely mismanaged the money and just has no business running his own charity. However, it seems to me that he cares about his image and his reputation more than any charitable impact. Notice how he was measured and calm right up until he started talking about taking legal action against other content creators - he started getting visibly angry at that point. He wants to be viewed as the altruistic, wholesome gamer, not the incompetent liar. A narcissist will get angry whenever people become disillusioned about the image they are trying to project.
never thought about it like that but thats a damn good point. but then again anyone would be pissed if someone is out to make them look like a bad person when they were out to try to do good, it's happened to me before. it doesn't excuse what he did but karls video did feel like a hit piece at times more than it felt like someone going for clarity on the situation, which is how that dude gets views so it could be seen as slanderous.
Hmm no it's definitely more than just mismanagement of the money, something more is definitely at play, tax filings are missing so much extra, from Jamie Lee Curtis contributions, merch sales, twitch/RUclips subs, golf charity contributions
He was basically the only one to survive G4 2 unscathed
No, he for 10 years were saying "We donate money to charities"
It's a lie for 10 years.
@@Tanook At this point, I wouldn't count on the court of public opinion of whether Jirard's fibbing or not. It's time for real professionals to check this out.