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

Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 413 posts

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#201

Post by ugwigr »

pacoWebConsult wrote: post #193
ugwigr wrote: post #156

the HN admin changed the link I posted. this is unethical - You are fundamentally changing what I posted. As a product manager here is a better solution - A.) Add a clear indicator that admin changed the link to redirect B.) Delete my link and post yours. Shawdow changing what users post is wrong.

Waiting for the dang smackdown reply to this comment. You posted a secondary source (typically these get redirected to the primary source for any story), and used the editorialized title from the original journalist as your post title. Pretty commonplace on HN to correct these things so we can discuss the facts, not the reductive analysis of what someone writes about the primary source.

as I suggested, admins should feel free to delete my post and even ban me from posting - but fundamentally changing what I posted is wrong.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#202

Post by mdorazio »

sokoloff wrote: post #152
rsyring wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subchapter S corporations or LLCs facilitate paying yourself distributions, which are exempt from Medicare and Social Security taxes, saving you an initial 15%. Although, there are details and caveats to be aware of. I don't know of any way to get that benefit without a corporation.

Social Security stops at something under $150K per year. If you’re going to try to avoid it by paying no salary and all distributions for work that you personally did, you’ll likely fall afoul of the “reasonable salary” test, designed to prevent exactly this.

Everyone needs to understand this. I’ve had two friends get audited and fined for massively underpaying themselves for contract work via their LLCs. Many of the people I run into who claim all kinds of benefits from this route are actually commiting low level tax fraud, knowingly or otherwise.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#203

Post by loeg »

tptacek wrote: post #43

The DOJ press release is clearer than this article is: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... Some fun details: Kail did his criming through a shell LLC he set up called "Unix Mercenary". He took between 10-15% of the total billings for each of the companies he hooked up with this scheme. None of those companies were charged (more's the pity). They got him on mail fraud, wire fraud, honest se…

The DOJ release says he was indicted in 2018 -- was this known at the time? And what's the 2021 update?

Edit: The 2021 angle is that he was sentenced today. You would know that from OP's original article, but not the newer DOJ link.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#204

Post by bogwog »

Phillip98798 wrote: post #149
ludocode wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely believe he should go to prison. If a fine is the only punishment for a crime, then that law only exists for the lower classes. The only way to punish a rich person and deter other rich people from crime is to take away their freedom.

Aren't there better targets to make a point with though? Military contractors, oil companies? We're talking about billions of dollars in bribes. Do you think this case will even put a dent in that corruption? This is not a lot of money and as the popularity of this thread insinuates, this is how things have always been. There is no Silicon Valley without these types of deals unfortunately.

Imagine if it was only a fine: say, 90% of all your money/assets. That sounds like a crazy gamble, but people gamble money all the time. Lots of people would be willing to take that risk.

But prison time scares everybody. You can't get those years back, no matter how wealthy you are.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#205

Post by Mizza »

splistud wrote: post #199
Mizza wrote: post #169

Lots of comments here about how sentences are harsher for harming corporations and the extremely rich rather than common people. (See this case, Theranos, etc.) Is it possible that Netflix is _funding_ (or providing substantial material support to) the prosecution of this case, a bit like we've seen in Chevron v Donziger?

As a shareholder of Netflix, I was directly harmed. I am most assuredly a common person.

Fair point.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#206

Post by dangrossman »

ugwigr wrote: post #197
jacquesm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did just that.

in the comment? how many people would read his comment versus the subject line? Also the fact that he can fundamentally change what a user posts and then choose whether or not to disclose it in comment section is a flaw.

That's how it's always worked here on HN.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#207

Post by twodave »

sokoloff wrote: post #152
rsyring wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subchapter S corporations or LLCs facilitate paying yourself distributions, which are exempt from Medicare and Social Security taxes, saving you an initial 15%. Although, there are details and caveats to be aware of. I don't know of any way to get that benefit without a corporation.

Social Security stops at something under $150K per year. If you’re going to try to avoid it by paying no salary and all distributions for work that you personally did, you’ll likely fall afoul of the “reasonable salary” test, designed to prevent exactly this.

You don't avoid it all via the S-Corp. You just avoid the half the employer (in this case, also you) normally pays.

I'm not a tax accountant or a lawyer, just happen to run my own consulting through an S-Corp. I still pay myself around half of the net revenue the S-Corp brings in as a regular employee, and that portion is taxed under FICA.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#208

Post by sciurus »

1B05H1N wrote: post #155
tptacek wrote: post #43

The DOJ press release is clearer than this article is: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... Some fun details: Kail did his criming through a shell LLC he set up called "Unix Mercenary". He took between 10-15% of the total billings for each of the companies he hooked up with this scheme. None of those companies were charged (more's the pity). They got him on mail fraud, wire fraud, honest se…

Kail ultimately received over $500,000 and stock options from these outside companies All this for 500k? Seems like a lot of trouble for the equivalent of a year as a C-Level.

Presumably the stock options had a chance of being worth far more than $500k.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#209

Post by bmurphy1976 »

Aeolun wrote: post #118
whymauri wrote: post #12

>In his own memorandum to the court, requesting that he be sentenced to a year of house arrest, Kail, 49, described himself as a “global power leader, top dev ops influencer and a thought leader.” So very humble of him.

I just don’t understand how he can possibly think saying something like that is a good idea. He must be living inside his own reality distortion field.

People like him are so ego-centric, so used to getting their way and never being told anything they do is wrong. That's how they end up in situations like this. They don't think they are doing anything wrong, they don't think they are taking anything that isn't theirs, they think the world owes it to them.

That's why he says it. He knows nothing else.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#210

Post by jacquesm »

ugwigr wrote: post #197
jacquesm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did just that.

in the comment? how many people would read his comment versus the subject line? Also the fact that he can fundamentally change what a user posts and then choose whether or not to disclose it in comment section is a flaw.

Entitlement is a flaw.
Post reply on HN