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

241–250 of 255 posts

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

#241

Post by twelve40 »

duffpkg wrote: post #185
lordnacho wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did people ask you for bribes, did you say no, did you miss the hints, or did you just not know that you needed to do this?

After losing some deals that just seemed like there was no credible way we could lose, better "product", better price, better team, etc. You start asking hard questions about all the people involved and eventually someome will confidentially explain what happened. Especially people who actually need to work with the worse vendor that just got selected. If you read through the settlement I linked ("The settlement also…

i'm far away from b2b sales so this is pretty shocking and thanks for sharing, but couldn't "kickbacks to certain customers in exchange for promoting its product" be something like "leave us a testimonial and we'll cut you a deal"? Is it legal to, say, pay for references and testimonials?

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

#242

Post by dylan604 »

twelve40 wrote: post #239
gnatman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mad Men is a fictional TV show set in the 1950s. "Big Pharma" sending doctors to resorts is now illegal in the US under the Sunshine Act.

I'm always amazed at how people around me really think this way. Yes, every high school chemistry teacher is a meth overlord, and you can just walk into Bank of Spain and rob it, haven't you seen it? facepalm

You're sarcasm is so good, I can't tell which direction it is aimed. That's pretty impressive.

Yes, I know my chem101 teacher wasn't Heisenberg. Yes, I understand how TV is fiction. However, are you really so thick to not realize that fiction is based on reality. Fiction isn't written in a vaccum, and the most interesting plots are typically based on some real situation the author has experienced, seen/heard, etc. Yes, it is dramatized to make the really boring parts interesting so people tune in, but come on. If you don't think a Don Draper/Walter White type existed as a single person or an amalgamation of multiple people then you just have your head in the sand.

Using modern TV/Film/media in examples isn't a cluelessness on the speaker's part. It's used as something much more relatable than an esoteric story that you might or might not be able to provide a link to.

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

#243

Post by jounker »

0x0nyandesu wrote: post #32

I love how it's totally legal for the governor of Florida to send lucrative drug testing contracts to his wife's owned company but a guy getting a few stock options from a client is illegal. I guess we'll just go back to big wads of cash in an envelope instead.

Florida is a state in which white collar criminals form a powerful voting bloc.

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

#244

Post by GauntletWizard »

DangitBobby wrote: post #226
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.

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.

And my boss knows that, and it's okay for executives to make corporate decisions for personal reasons. It's not okay for executives to make corporate decisions for personal reasons without acknowledgement, and particularly not with explicit deception. The difference between "my product is better for intangible reasons" and "my product is better because of lies out of teeth is fraud.

Taking personal kickbacks from vendors can be legal, so long as it's reported to your employer (and the IRS). What's not legal is hiding it from your employer because they have policies against it, and every (large) employer does.

The sole owners of large private companies can and do occasionally get personal kickbacks for their business. It rarely makes sense for them, because as owners of large private corporations they have better way of extracting cash from those companies (like literally paying themselves a salary or bonus). Totally legal, though.

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

#245

Post by moltar »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #205
moltar wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

But there’s proportional impact as well. The person who got the AWS treatment might be responsible for $50K of AWS budget. And the person at Netflix is responsible for millions of dollars of budgets, royalties and other schemes.

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

#246

Post by [deleted] »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #244
DangitBobby wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And my boss knows that, and it's okay for executives to make corporate decisions for personal reasons. It's not okay for executives to make corporate decisions for personal reasons without acknowledgement , and particularly not with explicit deception. The difference between "my product is better for intangible reasons" and "my product is better because of lies out of teeth is fraud. Taking personal kickbacks from ve…

[deleted]

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

#247

Post by d0mine »

humanistbot wrote: post #124
d0mine wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually such things as CoC are worded in such a way that everyone is guilty. It is a tool by those in power to dismiss anyone they like.

"You must report all gifts from entities seeking to sell products or services to the company" seems pretty unambiguous.

Obviously, some rules are less ambiguous than others. For me, it is hard to understand why lobbying is legal at all.

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

#248

Post by Chyzwar »

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.

> It's an open conference offered by the largest player in the space

In Vegas...

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

#249

Post by wayoutthere »

_jal wrote: post #172
horsawlarway wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever been under 18 and owned a spray paint can or a permanent marker? Crime. Ever connected to an open wifi network without directly confirming with the owner you're allowed? Crime. Ever held your phone while driving? Crime. Happen to also be headed downhill and hit 1mph over the limit? Double crime! Ever walked across your street outside of clearly marked crossings? Crime. Ever sung happy birthday in public? Crime.…

Right, I'm sure a white-collar exec took kickbacks because poker is banned in some jurisdictions. I agree that we massively overcriminalize things. But apologizing for a crook this way is just silly. (Not to mention you're factually incorrect on some of this, universalizing the rest when it isn't universal, and generally being very hyperbolic.)

It’s more about the general erosion of the rule of law. It forces you to weigh “how wrong is this” versus “will I get caught”. We make these choices every day, and after a while, it moves your own morality (especially when faceless, abusive corporate structures are the victim).

When unchecked, corruption becomes a local maximum. The corporate version of “plata o plumbo” (silver or lead, the choice Pablo Escobar gave government officials in Columbia) is an unspoken rule at a lot of “cash cow” companies or mature industries; they won’t trust you unless they can hold something like this over your head. Step out of line and they prosecute you, or if you don’t play ball your metrics will look like shit and you’ll get fired for poor performance.

My guess is that this guy just made some powerful enemies.

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

#250

Post by scotty79 »

ghaff wrote: post #240
scotty79 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it looks even worse. Netflix, instead of creating civil lawsuit against this guy, that they would have to pay for, silently bribed the right people in the justice system to charge him with some crime instead. This way Netflix punishes the man that did them dirty without paying a cent of their taxed legal money. Instead now every taxpayer pays for salaries of prosecutors and judges and whoever else is necessary…

Presumably you think investors in Theranos should also have also have been on the hook for pursuing legal claims. So basically most white collar crime should be pursued because it's mostly not worthwhile on a dollars and cents basis for government to do so. Or Enron? It's just fraud. It's a small step to go from there to say that white collar crime doesn't really hurt anyone and it's on those who think they've been h…

I think in Enron and Theranos cases, there were specific actual crimes happening. Like lying in the published information that's influencing the stock market. Or falsifying you financial records. Things specifically forbidden and labeled as criminal.

Not a thing that is so non-specific (in it's criminality) that you have to label it wire-fraud or mail-fraud (whatever that is) to even have a chance at making it look like actual crime, not just immoral thing he did that could harm his employer (but it's hard to tell to what extent it actually did).

Do you try to straw man me into position "all white collar crimes shouldn't be crimes"?

Post reply on HN