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

Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 214 posts

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#121

Post by dgzl »

mayneack wrote: post #74
rayiner wrote: post #61

I suspect people cynically demanding that CEOs be put in jail haven’t really dug into the facts of this or other FCPA cases. Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding teachers responsible for teenagers getting into fights or having sex. It’s a strong moral position to take (holding teachers accountable), but it’s wholly impractical and unfair. In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed…

> Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding teachers responsible for teenagers getting into fights or having sex. This analogy doesn't hold for a lot of reasons, but the most obvious is that teachers don't get to choose their students. CEOs can (and should) fire employees that don't live up to their ethical responsibilities.

A better analogy:

Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding a principal responsible for teachers getting into fights or having sex.

Or, whatever problems teachers cause

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#122

Post by rayiner »

StillBored wrote: post #117
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the part right before your quote says: “For more than a decade, Walmart used middlemen to make dubious payments to governments around the globe in order to open new locations, United States prosecutors and securities regulators said in a settlement agreement on Thursday.” The parts you quote are the NYT reporting the prosecutor’s allegations as fact. But the passage you quoted also explains everything you need to…

But that is how this works, the Government has a hard time proving intent without a smoking gun. The Walmart execs are smart enough not to incriminate themselves with any emails/phone calls. So the government has a fairly strong case, but Walmart gets to plea agreement which wipes one of the main pieces of evidence (effectively the bookkeeping coverup) in exchange for paying the fine and closing the case. Both sides…

If you don’t have good evidence of intent, you don’t have “a fairly strong case.” Intent is the lynchpin of criminal law, especially when you’re trying to hold someone liable who didn’t do the actual illegal act. You know what gets you a gold star as a prosecutor? Putting people in prison. The guy who put Raj Rajaratnam in prison is now a partner at one of the top law firms.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#123

Post by mmanfrin »

dahfizz wrote: post #106
mmanfrin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company in a vacuum. A CEO is absolutely not absolved of crimes committed in the name of the company, especially over the span of a decade.

> No employee is breaking the law... That's absolutely absurd. Would a teenaged cashier be absolved of all guilt for murdering a troublesome customer? But the CEO should be held accountable? If I literally cannot break a law as long as I'm working for a company, then why don't bank robbers get a job at Walmart first and claim robbing banks was for the benefit of Walmart? How could you ever convict anyone if the excus…

> murdering a troublesome customer

This furthers the interests of the company?

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#124

Post by Avshalom »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #65
nerdponx wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just a speeding ticket. They are ahead.

It's 3.67% of that number - if you were a software engineer making $100,000 / year in the US, it would be like paying a speeding ticket of $3670, which is an order of magnitude greater than most speeding tickets in the US

100,000 is gross revenue. Walmart's was $514B. 280M is then equivalent to $55.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#125

Post by yborg »

shkkmo wrote: post #91
Consultant32452 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will just play devil's advocate. Sometimes different cultures have very different ideas about what is an ethical way of doing things. If you're passing judgement on Walmart here, I think you're also passing judgement on Brazilian culture. Of course, you're welcome to do so, and I might even agree with you. But if you want to fine Walmart for doing things the "Brazilian way" while operating in Brazil, then I think i…

> But if you want to fine Walmart for doing things the "Brazilian way" Is this "Brazilian way" legal in Brazil? If so, there is a decent chance that it is allowed under the FCPA.

There are a number of court cases currently in Brazil that suggest that the "Brazilian Way" is not in fact in accord with Brazilian law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Car_Wash

Parent may argue that Brazilians themselves are thereby insensitive to the "Brazilian way" and should be educated by US corporations as to the social values they should hold.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#126

Post by rolltiide »

StillBored wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #61

I suspect people cynically demanding that CEOs be put in jail haven’t really dug into the facts of this or other FCPA cases. Holding the CEO liable for employee misdeeds is like holding teachers responsible for teenagers getting into fights or having sex. It’s a strong moral position to take (holding teachers accountable), but it’s wholly impractical and unfair. In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed…

From the article: "But even as employees frequently raised alarm, the company’s top leaders did little to prevent Walmart from being involved in bribery and corruption schemes." Which means the "top leaders" knew of the problem, and choose to ignore it. It would be a different story if they put real effort into self policing and there was evidence they pushed the guilty contractors/etc but again: "The plea agreement,…

Yeah but should the US be using taxpayer resources on this at all?

The result of policing kickbacks is a kickback?

Overhead cost

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#129

Post by hanniabu »

rayiner wrote: post #110
StillBored wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "But even as employees frequently raised alarm, the company’s top leaders did little to prevent Walmart from being involved in bribery and corruption schemes." Which means the "top leaders" knew of the problem, and choose to ignore it. It would be a different story if they put real effort into self policing and there was evidence they pushed the guilty contractors/etc but again: "The plea agreement,…

So the part right before your quote says: “For more than a decade, Walmart used middlemen to make dubious payments to governments around the globe in order to open new locations, United States prosecutors and securities regulators said in a settlement agreement on Thursday.” The parts you quote are the NYT reporting the prosecutor’s allegations as fact. But the passage you quoted also explains everything you need to…

Let's just say employees raise alarm and they're intentionally ignored to sweep things under the rug, I feel it'd be incredibly easy to claim that nothing happened due to improper record keeping

Also, if Walmart wasn't in the wrong then why would they agree to a $330M settlement?

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#130

Post by StillBored »

rayiner wrote: post #114
StillBored wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about if he knew the cashier was stealing the money, was intentionally ignoring it, and maybe even cooking the books a little, to cover for that employee? Does lit change if the manager was benefiting from the theft in some way? That sounds a lot closer to what happened.

Show me in the SEC filing where it suggests Wal-Mart’s executive leadership did anything like that: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1331-walmart-sec-set...

Did you read it? The bits I just read do nothing to invalidate the basic story here.

Try page 6...

Nice bits all over from walmarts own investigation:

"The final report that was sent to Walmart in December 2004 omitted references, contained in earlier versions, to MXN $45.6 million (approximately USD $4 million) paid to one of the gestores that Mexico Subsidiary Lawyer A alleged was corrupt."

Then there pieces where it talks about how the invoices are just lump sums rather than properly broken down and employees are claiming the the money is being given to the MX government officials..

"Investigator circulated a report concerning the Mexico Subsidiary allegations that stated that laws had been potentially violated, and recommended several additional investigative steps."

"Walmart did not follow the investigators’ proposed action plans. On or around February 7, 2006, Walmart tasked Mexico Subsidiary Lawyer B with leading the remainder of the investigation."

Of course none of this is going to be an email that says "hey this contractor is paying the government to speed up our permits, lets keep doing business with them."

No its all just looking the other way and doing the minimum to follow the letter of the law and using back channels to cut out the really incriminating parts.

Post reply on HN