Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 231 posts

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#111

Post by argd678 »

gnode wrote: post #92
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rationale for not pursuing the company for the full $700 million dollars lost escapes me Satellites are usually insured. (Not sure about NASA protocol, though.) If that’s the case, the insurer will sue. Shareholder lawsuits will also, naturally, follow, as will suits from all the other customers. Agree, though, that it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea.

> it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea. They are though. From the justice.gov article: "Dennis Balius, the SPI testing lab supervisor, led a scheme to alter tests within SPI’s computerized systems and provide false certifications with the altered results to customers. Balius also instructed employees to violate other testing standards, such as increasing the speed of the testing ma…

I wonder how a testing supervisor could be motivated to falsify the tests?

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#112

Post by dangerboysteve »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68
pseudolus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deferred prosecution agreement essentially means that as long as the SEI adheres to the financial terms of the plea agreement the government will eventually drop the charges [0]. That's an amazing deal in its generosity and I'm sure that the financial penalties levied are outweighed by the financial gain realized over the years of their fraudulent activity. The rationale for not pursuing the company for the full…

> rationale for not pursuing the company for the full $700 million dollars lost escapes me Satellites are usually insured. (Not sure about NASA protocol, though.) If that’s the case, the insurer will sue. Shareholder lawsuits will also, naturally, follow, as will suits from all the other customers. Agree, though, that it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea.

Does then should allow the insurance company to go after SPI and its directors to recoup the payout.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#114

Post by scarejunba »

chias wrote: post #107
brianpgordon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a worthwhile book that might help clear up some of your bewilderment at why corporate crime cases so often turn out so unsatisfactorily. https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute... My personal TL;DR from a couple of years ago if you don't have the time to read the book: - It's very hard for prosecutors to secure a criminal conviction even in the most blatant cases of wrongdoing. - Prosecut…

> There's intense political pressure to not punish shareholders for management's misdeeds Rightly so, IMO. I invest almost exclusively in index funds, which means there's a good chance I'm a shareholder and don't even know it. I like to think that it wouldn't make sense for me to be held responsible.

You're not held responsible. The company is. You just made a bad investment through bad fortune. You get to sue the company for losing you money.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#115

Post by brianpgordon »

chias wrote: post #107
brianpgordon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a worthwhile book that might help clear up some of your bewilderment at why corporate crime cases so often turn out so unsatisfactorily. https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department-Prosecute... My personal TL;DR from a couple of years ago if you don't have the time to read the book: - It's very hard for prosecutors to secure a criminal conviction even in the most blatant cases of wrongdoing. - Prosecut…

> There's intense political pressure to not punish shareholders for management's misdeeds Rightly so, IMO. I invest almost exclusively in index funds, which means there's a good chance I'm a shareholder and don't even know it. I like to think that it wouldn't make sense for me to be held responsible.

The reason your index funds return so much is that you're buying a share of ownership in the company. That includes upside but it also includes downside. If there were no downside you'd be getting exactly money market-like returns.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#116

Post by nerdponx »

abakker wrote: post #99
gnode wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea. They are though. From the justice.gov article: "Dennis Balius, the SPI testing lab supervisor, led a scheme to alter tests within SPI’s computerized systems and provide false certifications with the altered results to customers. Balius also instructed employees to violate other testing standards, such as increasing the speed of the testing ma…

>because it isn't a human. This is especially interesting in the context of corporate personhood[1]. You can't send a corporation to jail, but you can disband it entirely, or prevent it from operating. A lot of the practical solutions try to leave badly behaving company operating, though, since if we shut them down there is a lot of collateral damage in the form of lost productivity in the economy and lost jobs. IANA…

Frankly I don't see why being a member of a corporation should protect an individual from criminal charges. If you do or authorize something illegal on behalf of your company, you should be personally responsible.

I know it's a long-standing doctrine in law and there is probably a good reason for it, but it just seems too easy to abuse.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#117

Post by nerdponx »

shkkmo wrote: post #105
gnode wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea. They are though. From the justice.gov article: "Dennis Balius, the SPI testing lab supervisor, led a scheme to alter tests within SPI’s computerized systems and provide false certifications with the altered results to customers. Balius also instructed employees to violate other testing standards, such as increasing the speed of the testing ma…

But you can send the executives who designed or oversaw a reward and evaluation schema that incentived this kind of behavior. Instead, we seem pretty comfortable with passing off the responsibility to rank and file employees / middle managers while the majority of the benefits from the bad behavior accrue to the executives and shareholders. Edit: I get that the criminal intent needed under our current laws means that…

I fully support this. If you, a manager, are aware of illegal activity within your organization and do not take steps to stop it, you are as responsible as the individuals doing the illegal activity.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#118

Post by aerophilic »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #68
pseudolus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deferred prosecution agreement essentially means that as long as the SEI adheres to the financial terms of the plea agreement the government will eventually drop the charges [0]. That's an amazing deal in its generosity and I'm sure that the financial penalties levied are outweighed by the financial gain realized over the years of their fraudulent activity. The rationale for not pursuing the company for the full…

> rationale for not pursuing the company for the full $700 million dollars lost escapes me Satellites are usually insured. (Not sure about NASA protocol, though.) If that’s the case, the insurer will sue. Shareholder lawsuits will also, naturally, follow, as will suits from all the other customers. Agree, though, that it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea.

> Satellites are usually insured. (Not sure about NASA protocol, though.)

All government missions (including NASA) are “self insured”. If they fail, they fail, with no way to recoup the cost.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#119

Post by closeparen »

derefr wrote: post #96
gnode wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s shocking nobody is going to jail in relation to a fraud guilty plea. They are though. From the justice.gov article: "Dennis Balius, the SPI testing lab supervisor, led a scheme to alter tests within SPI’s computerized systems and provide false certifications with the altered results to customers. Balius also instructed employees to violate other testing standards, such as increasing the speed of the testing ma…

Theoretically you could sentence a corporation to community service. I.e., forcibly rewrite its charter into that of a social benefit corporation, where the social-benefit goals are “doing whatever the government says.” Sort of half-way between commandeering a resource and nationalizing a corporation.

Staff are at-will. The only thing a government really gets from that is the corporation’s assets, which it would rather have in cash than in i.e. durable equipment. Hence fines.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#120

Post by will4274 »

shereadsthenews wrote: post #86
lotsofpulp wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only governments can file criminal charges.

As a blanket statement this is incorrect. Many common law jurisdictions permit private prosecution of criminal cases.

> many

Isn't it basically just the UK?

Post reply on HN