I Worked for a Criminal Organization • Hacker News Board

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#211

Post by ikeboy » Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #210

ikeboy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the fraud of the independence of the “Channel Partners” You still don't get it. The fraud was submitting false documentation to ARIN. Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal, as long as you don't submit false sworn affidavits and otherwise lie in the course of your activities. Responding to a subpoena as the entity it was sent to isn't lying. It says there was one occasion where the subpoena had both M…

> Operating multiple shell companies is perfectly legal Sure, what's not is: Having the registered principals of those shell companies be fictitious (as in this case). Having agents of your company who have received a warrant addressed to your company pretend that your company has not received it, whether the purpose is to evade the warrant or to avoid drawing attention to your fraudulent front companiest (as, again,…

>Having agents of your company who have received a warrant addressed to your company pretend that your company has not received it, whether the purpose is to evade the warrant or to avoid drawing attention to your fraudulent front companiest (as, again, in this case.)

It never says they pretended not to receive it, or that they didn't obey the "command" fully. If they had not obeyed any subpoenas, I assume they would have been charged with doing so.

> It does not say it has both companies info on it. Even if it did, directing employees to pretend your firm has not received a court order naming your firm when in fact your firm has received it is not legal.

It says it was sent to the Channel Partner - it's not clear how but I assume it came through an email to the Channel Partner.

"Even if it did, directing employees to pretend your firm has not received a court order naming your firm when in fact your firm has received it is not legal."

I don't understand your theory where responding to a subpoena and signing it as one entity is "pretending" you haven't received a court order.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether the set of facts in OP represents a crime. But even if so, it remains the case that everything described in OP, if it happened at a company that hadn't committed fraud but was using shell companies legitimately, would have been perfectly legal.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#212

Post by rstuart4133 » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 1:24 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #204

burnte wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes are dues for being part of a club. Any club will send security if you stay there, without paying, and refuse to leave.

No, a club will not imprison you in the club. They will just kick you out.

That's always an option in this case too. Just move to a somewhere without an extradition treaty.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#213

Post by kbenson » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 1:25 AM UTC

n0rbwah wrote: post #84

dannyw wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many, if not most companies, taking legal matters into your own hands without involving your company’s legal team will surely get you reprimanded if not fired. Just like how you would get fired if you sent out a legal demand letter to another company without legal being in the loop. Law enforcement is no different: they are not your friend.

Your employer isn't your friend either and most of them will gladly throw you under the law enforcement bus if it comes to that.

You employer isn't your friend, but there are aligned incentives when it comes to the business continuity and your continued employment as affected by general business health (even if not necessarily aligned when it comes to your benefits and salary).

Law enforcement doesn't even have that aligned incentive. You might say you are aligned in that you want the law to be followed, but their incentive is more along the lines of making sure they bring in and prosecute cases. If the only way to make the case work is to throw the company that reported it (and by extension, its employees) into the grinder because that's all they think they can successfully do, then that's likely what they'll do.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#214

Post by bArray » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 1:58 AM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #105

bArray wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A shop replaced my failed catalytic converter ($1200+ > replacement) with a straight pipe ($20 pipe and $200 of > time) many years ago because they (correctly) assessed me > to be a broke-ass student who wouldn't tell on them. The mechanic may have even made even more money by scrapping your catalytic converter. In the UK, swapping the exhaust out for a straight pipe is a common (illegal) modification for greater p…

> At one point we were also experimenting with the idea of using the starter motor strategically to aid engine acceleration - but nothing ever came of it. This is how the hybrid car was born.

> This is how the hybrid car was born.

Yes :) We were quite amused to have had the idea a few years before it's popularization!

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#215

Post by bArray » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 2:00 AM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #182

everdrive wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frustratingly, removing your catalytic converter has a very tiny effect on performance, and an enormous effect on emissions. Kids into car culture tend to hold very superstitious ideas about cars and performance. (eg, the manufacturer intentionally hobbled your car with a restrictive cat-back exhaust, and replacing it with something loud and terrible will "unlock" a significant amount of hidden horsepower.)

The reason for the superstition is that it is true ...in the 70s when the latest in emission technologies was clogging the exhaust with platinum balls. Now-a-days converters are built intelligently & removing it just reduces performance by fucking up the O2 sensor readings unless you also dump a grand on a new ECU

> Now-a-days converters are built intelligently & removing it

> just reduces performance by fucking up the O2 sensor

> readings unless you also dump a grand on a new ECU

You can also get a piggy-back ECU for the purpose of sending false sensor data - it's quite a bit cheaper.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#216

Post by Koremat6666 » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

normalnorm wrote: post #75

Koremat6666 wrote: post #15

May be I missed it but can someone tell me what was the crime the company was committing ? Almost any company will have defensive strategies such as stalling LEOs and Warrants in whatever way they can. A lot of this is not really "crime" as in kidnapping people or shooting people dead in some alley. Is having shell companies a crime ? I know a ton of bay area "startups" than engage in these sort of tricks to maximize…

Am I the only one getting depressed with all the excuses and rationalizations in this thread? It's the same with "adtech" and the like... "Hey, I'm not killing anyone, what's the harm?" Technology has the potential to raise humanity above its current conditions and limitations. But we can't have it, because we are selfish and short-sighted monkeys. Take a big dump on all the ideals if this delivers the paycheck. "Bus…

> Let's turn it into a dystopic market of bullshit covered in distasteful advertising,

I mean absolutely no disrespect to you and I understand your feelings are probably coming straight out your heart. However I would like to point out that when you say that the world does not meet your expectation and that somehow is a problem with the world and not your own self is very arrogant.

> But we can't have it, because we are selfish and short-sighted monkeys.

These distasteful comments about fellow humans are nothing but the same arrogant thought process that has caused havoc around the world through ideologies like communism and colonialism. It reeks of Rudyard Kipling's disgusting poem "White man's burden". Without knowing you are claiming that you have the power to know what is good for world and you only need power to fix it. In this process you actually get depressed. You are describing the world as "Fuck all this."

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#217

Post by Koremat6666 » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 2:14 AM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #130

normalnorm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one getting depressed with all the excuses and rationalizations in this thread? It's the same with "adtech" and the like... "Hey, I'm not killing anyone, what's the harm?" Technology has the potential to raise humanity above its current conditions and limitations. But we can't have it, because we are selfish and short-sighted monkeys. Take a big dump on all the ideals if this delivers the paycheck. "Bus…

The issue is when people try to stack-rank the "badness" of crimes. "Is bankrupting a thousand people through fraud worse than killing someone?" The answer is: it doesn't matter which is worse. Both destroy lives in different ways. Fraud and spam are crimes that ruin lives in their own ways.

> Fraud and spam are crimes that ruin lives in their own ways.

I never denied that. I wanted to know what exactly is the fraud that the company is causing. Also, spamming is all about matter or perspective. All major consumer companies send billions of emails. I would love to know what this company was doing differently .

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#218

Post by to11mtm » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 2:31 AM UTC

henvic wrote: post #172

speedplane wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a funny one because [Tax Evasion is] potentially one of the most serious crimes. You're stealing from everybody, undermining the basis of trust in the entire system in which we live and probably in the long term eroding the basis of democracy. You're creating a non-level playing field. This is true, and in addition, it's a very unequal crime. To properly evade taxes and get away with it, you need professional…

Tax evasion is not even a real crime. Tax is stealing from someone. Tax evasion and avoidance are great for society and we would be poorer if people didn't do it. Virtually all tax money usually goes to wars, warmongers, and the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats. Virtually nothing returns to society as services. When people find a way to pay fewer taxes, it means money is not only not going to wars, but also bei…

In theory, sure, but reality is a bit of a prisoner's dilemma.

Consider:

Person A is evading Taxes.

Person B is not evading taxes.

Government says 'Well, we aren't getting enough money', So they raise taxes on those who can't realistically evade. By a second order effect, Person A is causing Person B to get 'stolen from' twice instead of once.

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#219

Post by Rury » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 2:42 AM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #130

normalnorm wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one getting depressed with all the excuses and rationalizations in this thread? It's the same with "adtech" and the like... "Hey, I'm not killing anyone, what's the harm?" Technology has the potential to raise humanity above its current conditions and limitations. But we can't have it, because we are selfish and short-sighted monkeys. Take a big dump on all the ideals if this delivers the paycheck. "Bus…

The issue is when people try to stack-rank the "badness" of crimes. "Is bankrupting a thousand people through fraud worse than killing someone?" The answer is: it doesn't matter which is worse. Both destroy lives in different ways. Fraud and spam are crimes that ruin lives in their own ways.

Right on.

Similarly, people often conflate something morally good with something morally bad and ask/argue ”If I mix the two is it overall good or bad?". Which similarly doesn’t matter.

The good should never be conflated with the bad. Otherwise, the good will just be used for rationalizing the bad...

(That’s not to say morality is not somewhat ambiguous. I just often see people trying to justify immoral behavior by doing this)

Re: I Worked for a Criminal Organization

#220

Post by saber6 » Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 3:04 AM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #207

saber6 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing semantics. Don't defend fraud artists.

No, I'm not. OP is substantively wrong on their claims, not just semantically. The difference between illegal and legal is not semantic. You're the one defending someone who's wrong. Also, I'm not defending the fraud, but the (legality) of the parts of this that aren't fraudulent. I understand that you believe it's ok to smear anyone as long as they've done something else you dislike. I disagree.

> You're the one defending someone who's wrong.

Ok chief. I'll wait to see the outcome of the legal case. That has 10000x more weight than a random internet commenter that appears to be continually injecting FUD.

Also, just incase you missed my prior comment: Don't defend fraud artists.