Forget software, here in Miami where Uber drivers were initially operating illegally (cited with violating 2 municipal ordinances each being a ~$1,010 civil fine, but escalates to criminal charge after the 3rd such violation) Uber sent emails to driver training them on avoiding detection (e.g. When at airport take down phone; have drivers sit up front; etc...). I imagine there are similar emails for every county, cit…
Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from…
In criminal scenarios, is it common for a company to accept a plea bargain involving cooperation with Federal Government agencies in various ways such as providing user data or acting under order in select situations?
> drivers are forced to purchase a medallion In Germany: while taxis are required to have licenses, we don't have such things as taxi drivers renting their medallions for a day. > and abide by other silly regulations Regulations usually exist for good reasons. Let's just take the common complaints about the German ones: - cab drivers have rigorous tests on their knowledge of the city's streets: you don't want to have…
I haven't verified this for Germany, but I'd venture that cab drivers are probably required to have adequate insurance (which would be the most important thing to me).
As I recall, one of the things Uber got in trouble for in Germany was not meeting the insurance requirements.
A lot of usual situations like moving cash in excess of 10k euros without declaring it have been recently classified as attempts to launder money. In fact this is just how borrow happy states are hunting for taxes nowadays. Eliminating cash is their target. That way they can just take the money out of your account. Just look at India or other socialist states like Sweeden trying to eliminate cash while trumpeting tha…
As a Swede I find using us as an example hilarious. We are not a country which has traditionally cared too much about money laundering, most of our anti-money laundering stuff comes from other EU countries via the EU. And we definitely definitely do not have any problems with the tax revenue, our socialist government might even lower corporate taxes next year due to the current stable government income.
As for eliminating cash, yes we try to do that, but the reason given is not money laundering. The two reason/excuses which are commonly given are 1) preventing tax evasion and 2) preventing store robberies. Also note that the ones most heavily pushing for elimination of cash is not our government but our banks. I think card payments are much more profitable for banks compared to cash. But it is not like our government makes a secret about that its regulations surrounding cash payments are there to prevent tax fraud.
And the worst country for when it comes to hunting taxes is probably the US. A couple of days ago I had to sign two forms when opening a bank account where I guaranteed that I had no ties to America. Many smaller European banks wont even accept American citizens as customers due to the extra paper work to report stuff to the American IRS.
Seems like a lot of people are confused/have questions about why Uber is being criminally investigated by the Department of Justice.* Here's why: 1. Uber is subject to the laws in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Evading authorities is textbook obstruction of justice. Not only did Uber build software that they used to evade authorities & break local laws in multiple states and countries, but they profited from…
Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.
What happened in 2008?
In 2008 there was a global financial crisis that was caused, in part, by criminal actors in the financial industry yet there were no criminal convictions.
> Regulations usually exist for good reasons It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).
That doesn't work. It's been tried, some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it. By your logic we shouldn't regulate smoking or guns or a million other things we regulate, for good reason.
> some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it
stupid people will hurt them self, one way or another. You can't protect people from their own stupidity by introducing more and more regulations. Soon, you won't be able to purchase a kitchen knife.
> 2. Sure, corporations are people too, but, nonetheless, only people engage in civil disobedience. Related, for courts, a company that profits from violating of local laws is not a protester or freedom fighter battling injustice, it is criminal enterprise. This point seems out of place to me. To my understanding as a lay person, the law does not distinguish between a crime committed as civil disobedience and the sam…
I can understand the confusion/maybe I should have separated that into several points & or not sought to respond to the corporations are people comment I was certain I'd get before it was even said:) I'll try to unpack it but I may just make it worse.. 1) People love to say corporations are people too (thanks SCOTUS), but the law doesn't actually always consider corporations as legal people. It depends on lots of thi…
I appreciate the point you're trying to make here but this isn't correct. Point 4 makes it sound as if courts do allow natural persons to claim civil disobedience as a defense. They don't. At the level of a general statement (i.e., subject to specific statutory context), natural persons and legal entities are in the same position. Either could argue that a given law is unconstitutional, and win or lose. Or, either could refuse to comply with a law on purely moral/ethical/whatever grounds. In the latter case, the legal consequence is the same regardless of natural person, partnership, nonprofit, forprofit, etc.: violation of law. Considerations of justice, motivations, etc. can impact sentencing for natural persons and legal entities alike. Legal entities may have their personhood revoked in some cases - that is one difference w/ natural persons.