21–30 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The kicker is that some poor bastard was indicted for paying the "consulting" fee! I mean the system works best if people on both sides of the equation are punished, right?
It aligns incentives on both sides to keep the scheme secret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the article I linked to: > "Also the owner of Cargo On Demand was himself indicted, for paying the bribes, which seems a bit harsh. He was dealing with a company, and all the senior executives he dealt with told him that he had to pay these fees! He thought they were a resort fee!" It's also in the indictment. The defendant from Cargo On Demand is Patrick Lau, referred to as "Lau" throughout. As far as I can…
He's indicted, not convicted. "I'm a sucker and didn't realize what was going on" is absolutely a possible defense; I would assume that the DOJ will lead evidence to show that he knew what was going on and willingly participated, but that's why there's a trial.
$2M doesn't seem like all that much for a scam running over 12 years with 10 people involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The kicker is that some poor bastard was indicted for paying the "consulting" fee! Can you point me to where I can read more about that? I'm assuming the indicted person knew exactly what he was doing, but it's still terrible to be stuck in a business situation where the only way to get your job done is to go along with something like that.
It's in the article I linked to: > "Also the owner of Cargo On Demand was himself indicted, for paying the bribes, which seems a bit harsh. He was dealing with a company, and all the senior executives he dealt with told him that he had to pay these fees! He thought they were a resort fee!" It's also in the indictment. The defendant from Cargo On Demand is Patrick Lau, referred to as "Lau" throughout. As far as I can…
The article doesn't make it clear what the crime actually was. I got curious, so I dug up some more details: https://archive.ph/gvYFE And the indictment is here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1579271... Long story short, the indicted executives had fly-by-night LLCs that they used to accept payments from Polar Freight clients for preferential service. (Or for access to Polar Freight's shipping…
> The kicker is that some poor bastard was indicted for paying the "consulting" fee! Can you point me to where I can read more about that? I'm assuming the indicted person knew exactly what he was doing, but it's still terrible to be stuck in a business situation where the only way to get your job done is to go along with something like that.
Submitting invoices to two different companies wouldn't ring any obvious bells. If you have a company that calls making bids/examining cargo/whatever a "consulting fee", I'll roll my eyes, file the paperwork and pay the invoice.
I'm assuming the DOJ has emails or somesuch that actually acknowledge the scheme. However, that's probably going to be held for court.
The article doesn't make it clear what the crime actually was. I got curious, so I dug up some more details: https://archive.ph/gvYFE And the indictment is here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/press-release/file/1579271... Long story short, the indicted executives had fly-by-night LLCs that they used to accept payments from Polar Freight clients for preferential service. (Or for access to Polar Freight's shipping…
> The kicker is that some poor bastard was indicted for paying the "consulting" fee! I mean the system works best if people on both sides of the equation are punished, right?
Practical example: Tuna boats in the Pacific have onboard observers from one of the island nations that own the EEZs that are fished. Observers are paid okay for their countries, but not really a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. It would be a net positive if they could accept a bribe from a crooked boat owner and then report it once on shore. Turn over the money (with maybe keeping a small finders fee) and then that boat’s owner gets penalized across the entire Pacific. Now there’s a very strong incentive not to offer bribes.