The investigation has already found there was fraud. And from his failure to issue retractions for years after he was told, one can conclude he was at best indifferent to it.
What it hasn't found is evidence he got his own hands dirty or that he explicitly ordered fraud, and I'm not sure it will. raincom's comment [1] was dead on.
I'm unsure if this distinction holds any significance for him personally. One reason I call it out is that it's worth considering how to deter this kind of "leadership" when drafting scientific ethical standards or even laws.
What it hasn't found is evidence he got his own hands dirty or that he explicitly ordered fraud, and I'm not sure it will. raincom's comment [1] was dead on.
I'm unsure if this distinction holds any significance for him personally. One reason I call it out is that it's worth considering how to deter this kind of "leadership" when drafting scientific ethical standards or even laws.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36792536