Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the cases is that the actions of the companies involved, while potentially misleading or resulting in losses for investors, do not constitute securities fraud due to lack of intent to illegally possess investors' funds [26][27]. - Companies facing allegations of fraud often demonstrate a willingness to communicate and resolve issues with investors, indicating no fraudulent intent [26][27]. - The judicial recognition of securities fraud requires clear evidence of both the subjective intent to illegally possess funds and objective fraudulent actions, with doubts leading to a presumption of innocence [26][27]. Group 2 - Misleading sales practices, such as exaggerating expected returns or failing to disclose risks, are categorized as sales misguidance rather than securities fraud, provided there is no intent to defraud [7][12]. - Companies that experience operational difficulties or system failures are not automatically deemed fraudulent, especially when they take corrective actions and communicate with affected parties [18][22]. - Regulatory bodies typically address violations of industry norms through administrative penalties rather than criminal charges, emphasizing the importance of evidence in fraud determinations [26][27].