321–330 of 413 posts
"On rare occasions, freedom is abused. We had one senior employee who organized kickbacks on IT contracts for example. But those are the exceptions, and we avoid over-correcting. Just because a few people abuse freedom doesn’t mean that our employees are not worthy of great trust."
If you were caught paying bribes to a (corrupt) government official, wouldn't you be breaking the law?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article describes an absolutely standard kickback scheme. If you're an employee of a company and arrange to take kickbacks from vendors without the approval of your employer, you're defrauding your employer.
Eh. "you're defrauding your employer." - that gets into an opinion. There isn't a law for that. Like the FEDS tend to do -- they got real creative with "mail fraud" and "wire fraud". I was surprised to not see "racketeering" for the FEDS bs trifecta. Their money laundering charge I would say is 100% bs: creating an LLC isn't laundering -- but who cares! the jury wont understand anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how it's always worked here on HN.
does not mean it is right
Allowing people to editorialize headlines and pick biased sources skews the discussion.
Since we want to limit multiple similar discussion threads but allow everyone to continue talking, this is a good compromise.
Giving too much credit to a biased source or blogspam post goes too far in the direction of skewing the discussion IMHO.
Also the link or headline might change multiple times. Best to just keep it simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- "you expect"- wrong! - at no point did i express my "expectation". I was voicing my opinion on how I think the UX should work for this use case - "instead of the way it already worked when you joined." Just because it worked this way does not mean it is right. - "HN -> HN's rules." Yes, Captain Obvious. this does not mean their rules make sense and certainly does not mean a user voicing an opinion on how the rules…
This "captain obvious" stuff isn't helping you; it's just going to get everything you have to say flagged. You sound upset. I don't think I understand why --- having links replaced is totally standard HN practice, happens all the time, and works to the overall benefit of the community. But I don't have to understand why you're upset for you to feel that way. Rather, I'd just say, step away from HN for a bit until you…
it would be nicer from a transparency perspective to make these kinds of changes easily auditable by adding an "edited by" in the full page or a dedicated audit log. it would strike a balance between letting moderators improve the community while improving transparency at the system level.
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…
Thanks, this is indeed a better source. A lot of people here are saying this is incredibly common which is frankly pretty surprising to me. Does it really happen through shell LLCs? I am definitely aware of execs prioritizing startups they've invested in, which is... not a great look. But this seems to be a different thing. Kail wasn't an investor. He explicitly drafted agreements that paid him a fraction of the mone…
Embezzlement: Misappropriation of funds Fraud (in the inducement): (Specifically wire/mail fraud when talking about contracts): Misrepresentation of contractual terms to induce entering into a contract. (Here the misrepresentation is the amount of money that the vendor was going to charge netflix since technically his kickback would've reduced the expenses to Netflix)
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…
Is there any gray here? Example: you continue a contract with NewRelic and they buy you a fancy dinner at a michelin restaurant. You go with Splunk and they buy you a vacation in Hawaii to talk things 'over'. Seems like if you aren't taking cash - things can get gray real fast.
Generally, the company will have a limit (somewhere in the $25-$50 range) on gifts you could give or receive without prior authorization. So maybe I can take you to a bar or coffee shop and get you a drink or two while we talk. But not a dinner at a high end restaurant, or a sporting event or a vacation in Hawaii, because the risk of being corrupted (on the receiving end) or reputational risk from being seen as corrupt, was too great.
This is particularly potent issue for American companies because of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA means that US companies (and their subsidiaries, contractors, etc.) have to draw these sorts of lines over the entire world, or be subject to heavy penalties, even in countries where it might be more common and legal.
“he stole the opportunity to work with an industry pioneer from honest, hardworking, Silicon Valley companies.”
…I had to double-check this was coming from justice.gov, not a satire site or PR blog. That isn’t to say that there aren’t honest and/or hardworking SV companies, or that they weren’t wronged. It’s just never a phase I’ve seen before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We always check the corporate registries to see if any of the legal entities the execs of a company are related to are making substantial turnover from either the company we are looking at, or a subsidiary. In 200+ DDs this has happened a handful of times. Just to add a few points: - This is much easier to do in Europe where entities are more public. - I regularly see (probably 1 out of 20 deals) companies where th…
A conflict of interest is one thing, but as long as it is disclosed to all parties who might be on the downside of that conflict it need not be a problem in and of itself (but it still could be, and may very easily become one). An undisclosed conflict of interest is always a problem.
Can you help me understand why this is? If a known conflict of interest may or may not be a problem for the downside party why does that change if the conflict is unknown?
I can see how it can become a problem, and how the downside party is at a disadvantage but I’m not understanding why this is always a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A conflict of interest is one thing, but as long as it is disclosed to all parties who might be on the downside of that conflict it need not be a problem in and of itself (but it still could be, and may very easily become one). An undisclosed conflict of interest is always a problem.
> An undisclosed conflict of interest is always a problem. Can you help me understand why this is? If a known conflict of interest may or may not be a problem for the downside party why does that change if the conflict is unknown? I can see how it can become a problem, and how the downside party is at a disadvantage but I’m not understanding why this is always a problem.
A conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem as long as the conflict is disclosed so that dealings around that conflict can be scrutinized.
But if you never disclose it, then problem or not, no one will know.