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

231–240 of 413 posts

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#231

Post by Phillip98798 »

bogwog wrote: post #204
Phillip98798 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hear that. I just wonder what exactly it is we're accomplishing here in terms of justice. More corporate compliance and fear? Where is the line going to be drawn? Hyperbolic perhaps, but what's to stop the law from going after salaried people with side projects? Oh, you visited the stackoverflow career page during your 9-5? That's fraud. I'm exaggerating, but the precedent is there. Cases like this can create a slippery slope to complete subservience to big corporations.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#232

Post by outworlder »

tyingq wrote: post #25
csmythe15 wrote: post #2

Hey, I'm the author of the article -- just wanted to point out that what made this story interesting to me is the implication that this kind of conduct could be very widespread. Prosecutors definitely hinted at that. If anyone knows of any similar stories, I'd be very interested in hearing them. christie.smythe@businessofbusiness.com

I've definitely seen a fair amount of brazen stuff like this over several decades in IT. One path that's pretty interesting to follow is announcements about new board members at software providers. Often, you can see their prior (or even current) job, and press releases about them selecting that software some short(ish) time before.

> Often, you can see their prior (or even current) job, and press releases about them selecting that software some short(ish) time before.

That may or may not be a problem, depending on policies and how it was handled.

Generally, you need to disclose any conflicts of interest. Then, its up to your company on what will be done next. You are probably going be removed from the actual decision-making process (regardless if you are ultimately going to be the one closing the deal - after your peers approved the decision).

If everything was disclosed and there was no kickbacks, it might have been ok (although the press release may overstate the role they played in the selection).

If not, you may be in hot water with your company and even the justice system.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#233

Post by tootie »

numbsafari wrote: post #44
csmythe15 wrote: post #2

Hey, I'm the author of the article -- just wanted to point out that what made this story interesting to me is the implication that this kind of conduct could be very widespread. Prosecutors definitely hinted at that. If anyone knows of any similar stories, I'd be very interested in hearing them. christie.smythe@businessofbusiness.com

The amount of "I don't get why this is wrong?" going on in this thread would seem to support the prosecutors' view that this is a widespread practice. Long ago, before Dotcom went Dotbomb, I worked for a firm where the CIO was being paid kickbacks by our hardware reseller. He was terminated for other reasons and, shortly after he left, our head of network ops got a call from the distributor asking where they should s…

I think the current generation has absorbed so much cynicism that a concept like a legally enforceable honest service just seems like a joke. It's a blanket assumption that everyone is out for themselves so why punish anyone for it. I've never personally observed or even suspected a kickback from having been paid, but vendor selection and contract enforcement is so arbitrary I'm not sure any corruption would have made much difference.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#234

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

earthscienceman wrote: post #7
autarch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first sentence of the second paragraph says: "There was just one catch to landing that deal: It had to hire the streaming company’s vice president of IT operations, Michael Kail, as a consultant and an advisor, and pay him with fees and stock options." That seems pretty clear to me.

It seems very unclear to me. I don't understand why that's illegal or wrong. Someone was hired and paid using fees and stock options? Seems fine to me. I don't understand corporate structure enough to understand why that's problematic... “leveraged his status as a leader of the IT community in Silicon Valley to subvert the trust of Netflix and others to profit at their expense” How did he leverage it in a way that wa…

How is it not crystal clear to you what the conflict of interest is here?

When someone hires you to do a job, they hire you to make decisions that are in the best interest of the company. If you are getting paid bribes from suppliers when you buy their services for the company, how can you be trusted to be objective?

I'm curious, what geography do you work in? European country, India, China, USA, Canada? My curiosity is because this seems self evident to me, but it may be cultural thing, and I'm curious to know your cultural background.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#235

Post by handrous »

0xFACEFEED wrote: post #230
handrous wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The amount of "I don't get why this is wrong?" going on in this thread would seem to support the prosecutors' view that this is a widespread practice. I think it's because a lot of "hustle" culture and stories of the early business careers of very successful founders involve a bunch of stuff that sure looks like fraud or otherwise like something that ought to be illegal (it may not be, but I mean that it feels like…

Heh, yea. Good observation. This reminds me of the ridesharing debacle. Uber was operating an illegal taxi service which upset a lot of local governments. It was taken to the courts multiple times. Uber won but one of the lessons to young founders was to go for it even if it's not strictly legal - laws can change. Now I'm not saying what Uber did was necessarily a bad thing. But if I had the idea to disrupt taxi serv…

YouTube got huge largely due to rampant piracy, in the early days. Straight-up posting copyrighted material unmodified, and all kinds of use of media (songs, especially) in ways that aren't protected by fair use. All while copyright cartels were going after torrent users—YouTube? Made a bunch of people rich, none of them paid for what they knowingly did, and no-one thinks 1/10 as ill of any of them as they do of this guy, now.

What the hell is the lesson of any of this? It sure seems to be "doing unethical and/or illegal things is downright necessary to succeed big-time in business, and doing them successfully will make you rich and, most bizarrely, respected—unless you screw the wrong people (i.e. the bigger scammers/criminals/morally-questionable people) then you're just a criminal and we'll all sneer and spit on you and fine you and send you to prison"

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#236

Post by tomjen3 »

renewiltord wrote: post #122

Oh, just run of the mill bribery. It's a classic government bureaucrat trick done at a private firm. Seems unnecessary. Netflix VPs are well compensated, but there is no boundary for greed.

Isn't it widely known that the trick for the government is to do what the defense contractor wants when in office and then get a nice job with the after?

Since nothing is signed, there is no way to actually prove it is bribery.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#238

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

numair wrote: post #163

If this is all illegal, the stories I was told by early Facebook employees about how Chamath made his money are more confusing than ever.

I don't know Chamath, but his presence online makes me think he is shady af. His whole TSLA "selling my shares while telling everyone else not to sell" scheme alone gets him a black mark in my book. Then all the SPAC stuff he did makes it even more unwholesome.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#239

Post by s1artibartfast »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #175
jnwatson wrote: post #142

The weird aspect of the whole thing is that if the exec were a corporation, it would have been legal.

> if the exec were a corporation, it would have been legal No. It would not. "Kail approved contracts to purchase IT products and services from smaller outside vendor companies and authorized their payment." This is a commonly outsourced function. If I hire a company to manage my IT procurement and learn they're getting undisclosed kickbacks, they'd be breaking the same laws Kail did.

It depends on the fine points of if the company is managing procurement or selling 3rd party services to fit a need. If the latter, it is a markup, not a kickback

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#240

Post by xyzzyz »

Phillip98798 wrote: post #109
xyzzyz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are in fact plenty of people who believe that people shouldn’t be able to get away with white collar crime to the tune of millions of dollars with a slap on the wrist, when petty criminals get much worse sentences for more minor trespasses.

Sure, there's Bernie Madoff stuff, and then there's this. Are you comfortable with big corporations and government hegemony muscling employees into compliance? I'm not. The guy should undoubtedly be sued, but it feels wrong to create an equivalency here with violent offenders.

This guy defrauded the company to the tune of millions of dollars. I am perfectly comfortable with big corporations and governments muscling people into compliance, where thing to comply with is “not stealing from the company”.

Imagine you run a business, and your employee just steals one of the company vehicles. Do you think you should have any recourse beyond firing them? I mean, it’s only a few tens of thousands of dollars worth of loss to you, so if you don’t want the government to go after the guy that stole millions from Netflix, why expect the government to help you recover some paltry car? It’s not violent offense after all, just property.

As it happens, fraud is a crime, and government prosecutes crime to deter it. This is perfectly reasonable, and how things have always worked.

Post reply on HN