And just name every consulting org or big vendor that they don’t do this in every industry.
Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
211–220 of 255 posts
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#212> and serve a three term of supervision upon release from prison. Is there a typo in there, is that just a weird legal term, or is it just me that has a hard time processing what that means?
Also this, with directionality of "bribe" reversed: >Mr. Kail chose which IT contracts were awarded by Netflix according to how he was able to bribe those companies to provide him with financial compensation
Little bit weird but it's not wrong. He bribed the companies with contracts to get them to give him a kickback.
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#213Does anyone feel like wire fraud is a catchall term for when some people are hellbent on sentencing someone, who didn't do anything that was by itself a crime? Shouldn't this be a civil case between Netflix and this guy? Why is criminal justice system even involved in this? It looks like very bad way to spend tax payers money.
Because, cynicism (and specific elected officials) aside, the government has a vested interest in people viewing it as a country of laws rather than a country of whatever you get off with is fair game.
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#214Every time this story comes up, the comments are filled with people proclaiming that kickbacks like this are totally normal and very common. I can't tell how much of it is random people projecting their cynicism onto the business world, or if it's people who have been part of bribery/kickback schemes themselves trying to normalize the behavior online. Either way, cases like this should make it clear that the behavior…
> I can't tell how much of it is random people projecting their cynicism onto the business world, or if it's people who have been part of bribery/kickback schemes themselves trying to normalize the behavior online.
I think most people don't understand the difference between an agreed to agency fee/reseller margin deal, a direct incentive program, and someone just taking money, on the side. Direct Incentives (also call spiffs) are where a supplier pays a bonus directly to the person who sold the deal. These are always agreed to between the companies and reported. Without permission of the employer, they could be very illegal or a major violation of your employment contract.
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#215I was there and saw some of this during my time at Netflix.
I've also been in the industry long enough to get my own sense of what is / what is not reasonable.
The first thing, Netflix wise, is to understand their culture deck at the time. One of the main things was "Act in Netflix's best interest". That basically described their philosophy of how employees should act.
So, when signing a contract, where you get a 10% kickback, (eg the company pays $200/hour and you get $20 as a commission, its better to have the company pay $180.)
Also, signing contracts that he was enriched by - stock, kickbacks etc. (he received what is now worth: $862,500 of sumologic, and $2,167,700 of netskope - trial document #276
He also signed contracts that were never deployed, had a long support lifetime, or didnt meet the companies needs - eg: Numerify, and docurated - trial document # 288
In some cases, I personally experienced us having to use tools that Mike had signed for that were not right for the job. Eg: Sumologic at the time was a horrendous product. It certainly was not a realtime logging system. Realtime was up to 15 minutes delayed. If you wanted realtime, it was all about syslog. I brought this up, and was told that we were using the product because of Mike, even though it clearly did not help our problems. Grep on the unix server was considerably faster and more up to date, (but it wouldnt have got Mike $2M of stock).
Mike also had me meet with him and various vendors who were pitching some fly-by-night ideas. In a normal world, I'd say they were very early startup ideas that weren't a match for our needs. Now, I'm wondering if these were meetings where Mike was looking to get an "advisory" angle.
In summary, I've been to coffee, dinners, very nice meals etc. with vendors. I've had them invite me places for meetings, and I've gone with my companies permission and understanding. I've had non-compensated advisory positions. The difference though, is my company was aware of it, and I did not receive stock or engineer contracts such that I received kickbacks. Thats where the line was, and thats why he's going to jail.
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't really seem that different.
You think inviting someone to conferences is the same thing as putting $700k in their personal bank account? Is this satire? What is going on in this thread?
Some people think that quantitative differences are never qualitative differences. Zero, one, infinity, right?
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#217Some previous discussion about the conviction 2 months ago:
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
or not trying to normalize but pointing out that its already normalized to the point that you can’t be an effective employee due to competition with people winning deal flow via kickbacks The actions in question occurred almost 10 years ago, how many people lost commissions and bonuses and promotions and jobs and relationships by trying to play fair? acknowledging this isn’t being an apologist for it or condoning it…
How do you propose that one solves this?
The wrong people are being prosecuted, they are going after the most well connected node in a graph only when noticed.
It should not be a criminal charge.
And the civil charge likely needs to be levied elsewhere, and let the individual perpetrator be embroiled in private litigation with the employer and associated companies.
I see the same absurdity in the FCPA. Americans are sent into to foreign and already corrupt markets to land business, but if they do anything competitive in that corrupt market, then they … have to pay a kickback to the United States too as punishment for paying kickbacks?
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't really seem that different.
You think inviting someone to conferences is the same thing as putting $700k in their personal bank account? Is this satire? What is going on in this thread?
At least in the medical field, conferences only provided the thinnest veneer. Doctors were paid handsome fees to present, which is tantamount to dropping money in their bank account when you compare it to other professions whether people often go to conferences on their own (or company’s) dime.
Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main difference here is the scale. "Let us take you on a $2000 vacation" vs. "Let us take you on a $700,000 vacation." One is objectively ridiculous - this is the difference.
So what you’re saying is taking a smaller bribe is okay? Just as long as it’s not a “ridiculous” bribe…
There are thresholds elsewhere. For example, a civil servant can accept a gift, up to a very small amount, from a vendor without being an ethics violation.