Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes • Hacker News Board

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#191

Post by geofft » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 11:12 AM UTC

c3534l wrote: post #159

geofft wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Human beings are allowed to organize for the purposes of political action and whether or not they decide to form a corporation doesn't matter because "corporation" isn't a constitutional concept Sure it does - if I am killed by a natural person due to negligence, the state can imprison the person who killed me. If I am killed by a corporation due to negligence, the state generally does not imprison any individual,…

You're still making the mistake that legal personhood is literally being a person. People can go to prison. Abstract concepts cannot.

I literally just gave two ways in which we can meaningfully apply the concept of prison to corporations. If you insist on corporations being axiomatically unable to go to prison despite having a separate existence before the law from the natural people who comprise them, just admit that I'm a second-class citizen in your eyes, and then we can debate the way I's debate anyone who thinks I'm axiomatically a second-class citizen.

(Or get rid of prison for natural persons, I'm on board with that.)

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#192

Post by oarsinsync » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 11:19 AM UTC

snlacks wrote: post #190

rayiner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know there's a difference between what is most likely true and what's provable in court, right? It's perfectly reasonable to see all the facts, many of which aren't permitted to be considered by a jury, and then say, "wow,these laws are messed up, they let the powerful people get away with crimes. We should change that and hold them accountable." Likewise, it's not logically consistent to say " well, yeah it look…

> Moral and legal aren't the same thing.

Correct, but you shouldn't go to jail for immoral behaviour.

> It's perfectly reasonable to see all the facts, many of which aren't permitted to be considered by a jury, and then say, "wow,these laws are messed up, they let the powerful people get away with crimes. We should change that and hold them accountable."

The IRS does this, and it's horrible, but the accountability comes in the form of an increased tax obligation and not jail time.

Going to jail for doing something that was legal, but has become illegal after the fact, isn't something that benefits anyone but the ruling class, and isn't something that I would advocate for.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#193

Post by TomMckenny » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 11:33 AM UTC

Sacho wrote: post #182

TomMckenny wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange this is so far outside the Overton window that it can be read as a joke. In cases involving lower valued assets, the owner is almost always punishable: his dog bites you, it's his fault. His contractor lays bad wiring that burns down your house, it's his fault. His kids misdeeds are often legally his fault. And even if he loans his car to someone who crashes into it's legally his fault. But behind a corporate…

Your examples are flawed. In two of the cases, the "assets"(children and dog) are specifically not deemed responsible due to their lack of maturity/lack of understanding of societal norms - so we instead find the "owner"(or more properly named, parent/guardian) at fault - they are supposed to keep the children or pet in line. In the case of a loaned car, you are not liable for damages that the person you loaned the c…

A fine is simply passed on to customers or employees. If the fine is great enough, it could result in bankruptcy which harms employees and potentially customers.

Asset seizure targets the ones culpable rather than just transferring some or all of that burden. And regardless of the size of the penalty, there is no danger to third parties like employees, customers or other organizations along the supply chain.

If the above examples are inadequate, I will add civil asset forfeiture which is applied widely to crimes on the low end of the economic spectrum, even without convictions, but with great parsimony to crimes on the upper end even with conviction.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#194

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:04 PM UTC

StillBored wrote: post #130

rayiner wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As to the first quote, you’re omitting the very next sentence: “While the draft report stated that the transactions reviewed were reasonably appropriate, complied with documentation and classification standards, and were compliant with local policies, legislation and generally accepted accounting principles, it also described “unusual” and “facilitating” payments made in connection with Mexico Subsidiary’s use of gestores.”

Note that the SEC filing specifically quotes the term “facilitating.” “Facilitating” payments—paying officials to do a non-discretionary duty faster—is not illegal under the FCPA. Bribery under the FCPA only includes payments to induce officials to exercise discretion in your favor.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#195

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:28 PM UTC

icelancer wrote: post #171

js2 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a company with a million employees, it’s guaranteed So then the CEO had to know this behavior was occurring. Did the CEO and management attempt to do anything about it or did they just maintain plausible deniability, knowing that not having a guilty mind was sufficient to prevent management from being liable? If the NYT, an external organization, was able to uncover this behavior, why couldn't Walmart have had i…

>> So then the CEO had to know this behavior was occurring. Why does this naturally follow?

Because it is their responsibility and constructed ignorance is not an excuse for "mere mortals" it is reasonable to demand the same standard apply to them.

A bartender can't claim they didn't know the cient they served from behind a screened conveyor belt was too drunk. Thus the law should either allow the same sort of bullshit loopholes for all (a real headache) or they should be held to the same standard.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#196

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:40 PM UTC

salmo wrote: post #131

I'm sorry, It's an unpopular opinion to hold, but the overseas bribery thing is a ridiculous standard to hold. [These opinions are just mine, and while I have them as opinions I would never act on them as a representative of my company, not that I would ever have the chance, and I don't work for Walmart] Over the course of human history, bribery has been the norm. I would dare to say that today, by population, it is…

There is a very legitimate interest in the state banning bribe for international behavior. The US already face accusations of imperialism rightly or wrongly for trade involvement.

While it could be argued as "respectful of local customs/the fault of the host nation" being involved it taints the image of US as a trading partner as a whole and gives a reason for rational actor countries to refuse international businesses from the US for fear they will spread corruption because it worked for them before. By holding them all to the standard of "no bribes ever" it makes it clear that such practices tainting businesses are unacceptable.

If other states are worried about bribery (as opposed to liking it) then it gives them a reason to trust the extranationals - if they report bribery they won't get "Not illegal here" as a reaction but "It is a serious crime thanks for reporting it."

Essentially not doing so could harm the spread of US business which is not good for US economic power from which the rest of the nation's power stems.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#197

Post by JoeAltmaier » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:43 PM UTC

Strange - WalMart used to be hell on bribes, years ago. The WalMart Engineer that visited our site would put a quarter on the counter when taking coffee from the free machine - because it could mean his job to appear to take any freebies whatsoever from any vendor/supplier! How the mighty have fallen.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#198

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:51 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #48

droithomme wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you've got a very, very long list of other countries you need to be prepared to harass. Starting perhaps with US briber- cough cough - campaign financing practices.

Yes, imagine Japan fining Honda for its US component participating in lobbying "the American way." To me, it seems ridiculous.

Personally it sounds like a diplomatic and moral superiority coup to position themselves strongly in the future.

If it was done by a foreign superpower which wouldn't be obvious massive hypocrites I would be very afraid for future diplomatic and trade impacts if I was in the US government - especially if reforming wasn't in "my department".

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#199

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

malloreon wrote: post #96

If your company is too big to keep its own employees from committing crimes, it's too big.

The more important thing isn't the number per say (although they should be concerned) but how they are respond to it when they find out - and willfull ignorance is the same as knowing.

If say the Catholic Church's response to their sex abuse scandal was to turn over all evidence to the authorities and maybe make own judgements in parallel to defrock or excommunicate based upon the evidence they would be morally upstanding even if their judgement differed in some cases as "not enough evidence by our standard / not enough to be illegal but violates our scriptural standards".

Because they sheltered them for decades their moral authority is a joke and all priests being pedophiles is a dark comedy cliche.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#200

Post by cbush06 » Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

I don't see the problem. Overseas, in many third-world and developing countries, bribery is how business gets done. If you don't participate, you don't do business.