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

Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 255 posts

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#221

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

lowkey_ wrote: post #70
0x0nyandesu wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like forcing kids to buy brand new books so that they can get a code to use to take tests on an online platform that the professor gets kickbacks from that has nothing to do with the university the kid is attending?

What's the spot/contract/etc in that case, that the professor is selling but doesn't have the right to sell on behalf of the university for his own enrichment? I don't see an example of how the university is losing revenue and being defrauded in that scenario.

The University is not being defrauded, but the professor is still taking advantage of their position to make a personal profit.

Leaving aside the legal issues (I'm not a law expert, so I don't know if it is illegal), don't you think it is incredibly immoral for a professor to require a specific book for their class on the basis that the publisher is going to hand a check to the professor?

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#222

Post by dheera »

SippinLean wrote: post #206
dheera wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So did they hold him in prison from 2014 to 2021? What did he do during those years? There should be some law about time waiting for trial counting toward the sentence, which would also incentivize judges to work more quickly.

He was indicted in 2018 and released on bail https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-inc-vp-c...

Interesting. Maybe they should take 3 years off his sentence.

When the judges find out, next time they will work faster to get trials done in days instead of years.

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#223

Post by hintymad »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #13

Every 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…

A rumor is that Reed Hastings made it his personal mission to ensure that Kail gets the right punishment for he breach the trust of freedom-and-responsibility that Netflix gave to its employees.

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#224

Post by moralestapia »

moltar wrote: post #194
moralestapia wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is VERY different, come on. It's an open conference offered by the largest player in the space vs. a shady deal between a supplier and ONE person of another company, without its employers consent, on top of that.

It’s different in facts, but it’s not different in spirit. Did you know that pharma sales reps take out doctors to play golf all expenses paid, plus fancy restaurant lunch in the end? Is that different? How about a lobbyist donating money to a political party? Is that different? Google the law of reciprocity. It’s human nature.

It is different in spirit.

A marketing scheme intended to attract new customers is well within what's morally accepted. Also, it's not like every guy that goes to AWS re:Invent comes back with a brand new luxury car. What they get is just some good food and drinks, while they're there, and that's just providing good hospitality for your guests. It also does not happen behind closed doors, and most of the people that go are already existing customers.

vs.

Corrupt company approaches corrupt employee off the record to offer cash in exchange of contracts that would not get assigned to them otherwise (because if they were, they wouldn't resort to this).

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#225

Post by de6u99er »

I don't even allow companies to invite me for dinner or lunch, except if we do it in a way where I pay one time and the business contact pays the other time out of our own pockets.

It is important to me that I am able to make the best possible decision at any moment. I don't want someone else veing in a position where I can ve forced to do something I don't want to do.

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#226

Post by DangitBobby »

moralestapia wrote: post #189
DangitBobby wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't really seem that different.

It is VERY different, come on. It's an open conference offered by the largest player in the space vs. a shady deal between a supplier and ONE person of another company, without its employers consent, on top of that.

If I know AWS will fly me out for good times every year (but only so long as I select them for my Big Enterprise Account), I'm more likely to pick them over a vendor that won't do the same, regardless of what's better for the company. Bribery doesn't require currency, it just requires an exchange of value.

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#227

Post by AtlasBarfed »

DFHippie wrote: post #187
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More to the point, virtually every senior member of Presidential administrations do this almost blatantly, big-D or big-R, doesn't matter. This was hundreds of thousands. Those are billions. What's the difference? The person who got caught was a small fry and couldn't pull the strings.

> More to the point, virtually every senior member of Presidential administrations do this almost blatantly, big-D or big-R, doesn't matter. This is the sort of cynical thing people say because other people say it. Spiro Agnew did it, sure. That was a while ago. What are your other examples? Since virtually every member does this, you should have hundreds. And remember you need a roughly balanced count of Republicans…

It used to simply be the revolving door back to executive industry positions, which is what ALL the FCC and their ilk are headed by. Those exec positions used to function as the main "deferred bribery" mechanism, because who can question someone getting another job once the administration job ended? You mentioned the Obama administration, I remember the massive criticism early in his admin with the number of revolving door appointees to the various industry-focuses administration positions. The pay cuts they had to take for "public service", and the "oh look at their sacrifice to their country". OH PLEASE. PLEASE.

Now since citizens united, it's my impression that the lobbying industry / K street is now completely awash in money even moreso and that is the main source of "deferred bribery". I think near the end of the Obama admin there was going to be a rule change about joining a lobbying firm when you were done with congress. Holy crap did a lot of congress quit all of a sudden. They were cashing in.

Rudy Giuliani made a million bucks a year from his law firm. Why? He's not a good lawyer.

There is also cush jobs for family members and numerous other ways to do such things. Biden's son is an example, I've seen really crummy stories around Clarence Thomas's family a decade ago that made me realize the Supreme Court was far from an ivory tower immune to corporate influence.

Let me ask you a question: why does EVERY SINGLE, D or R, president take a trip to Saudi Arabia near the end of their presidencies? They are the effing president of the USA and they travel TO Saudi Arabia to basically kiss the royal family's butt?

Washington is AWASH in money. Yet nobody significant, the central focus of the all that lobbying money, goes to jail.

This is hilariously like NCAA football, but with less scrutiny, far more money. Everyone knows its going on, nobody talks about it, sometimes someone gets busted for going "too far".

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#228

Post by skuhn »

I'm glad to see the verdict and a relatively severe sentence handed down (I expected 6-12 months).

What Mike did was indeed unethical and fraudulent. It's also extremely foolish and shows poor judgment on his part -- his role at Netflix was to lead the organization to identify and implement the best solutions for the company and its customers. Instead he saw the opportunity for short-term personal gain at the company's expense, and by doing so he jeopardized his lifetime earnings potential that would have been many times greater. I hope this sends a message to anyone else in his position that there can be consequences.

I've been responsible for tens to hundreds of millions in annual expenditure, and to even have the appearance of vendor favoritism (let alone kickbacks, bribes, payoffs) is anathema to me. I have vendors that I like to work with because they do good work and they help me to make things happen, but even my favorite vendor is evaluated and earns the business on the merits every single time.

I have declined seemingly innocent gifts from vendors (and notified my management). I always turn down things like sports tickets and paid trips. I do let vendors pay for the occasional lunch, but only up to a point that I feel comfortable. Maintaining my independence is absolutely key to my role and my career.

I've also worked at places where even a paid for lunch is not acceptable. That won't influence my decision-making one iota, but if those are the rules then I follow them.

Not everyone does that, but I don't know anyone in the industry who thinks Mike's behavior is OK. Anyone working for me who made unjustifiable decisions with vendor agreements would make me re-evaluate their position -- and if I found a pattern along the lines of Mike's behavior, they would be dismissed and sued just like him.

Re: Netflix Executive Sentenced to 30 Months for 700K Bribes, Kickbacks from Vendors

#229

Post by avgcorrection »

vmception wrote: post #218
avgcorrection wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some good points.
Post reply on HN