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

81–90 of 413 posts

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#81

Post by paulpauper »

germandiago wrote: post #41

I do not understand this. I mean, politicians do this all the time and do not go to jail (Spain). I do not mean people offer themselves for briving. But did anyone ever think what would happen if politicians did not have much power to regulate? Companies would not be able to lobby. That means there would not be nearly as much incentive to brive as there is today. Once a regulator is in the middle, the incentive for c…

There is less political corruption in the US than people think. Everything is so scrutinized these days, especially compared to the rest of the world. White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu's travel expenses scandal was a big deal at the time, and this was in 1992 (before social media) and the amount of $ was pretty small. I think insider trading is possible concern though, although that too has gotten considerable scrutiny in the media.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#82

Post by mikestew »

jopsen wrote: post #42

Why? Is the VP compensation package at Netflix really that bad?

Because even the salary/bonus of a VP at Netflix is never really enough for some folks. And, as sibling comment eludes to, there's always one more ladder rung above you. No, of course you don't get it. Yes, of course you'd live just fine on that salary with tons of money left over. So would I...until I become a VP at Netflix.

But it's the bigger question of whether a person of such morals has VP material written all over them, or if the position causes one's formerly-solid morals to slip a bit (or a lot).

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#83

Post by runako »

So this guy traded his reputation and possibly his freedom for some small kickbacks? When his other option was stay at Netflix as a VP? When RSUs were around $9 (current stock price: $635)?

I wonder how much money he threw away assuming he had stayed 5-6 years instead. $5m? $10m?

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#84

Post by xyzzyz »

Phillip98798 wrote: post #68

Well, I'll be losing sleep hoping Netflix can make it through this tough time. Seriously, is there one person alive who believes the guy should get seven years in prison? Fire him, do your character assassination thing, but prison time? Why are our tax dollars being used to defend a multi-billion dollar corporation? Let Netflix run its own company. Change compensation structure or something to reduce corruption. Douc…

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.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#85

Post by geodel »

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 wish some of those "influenced" and thought followers write articles on how devops world is poorer with Mr Kail now incarcerated.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#86

Post by spenczar5 »

jsmith99 wrote: post #70
spenczar5 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could imagine some slippier cases. A lot of successful startup executives have a bunch of money and invest it in startups. They (of course) pick ones that they think will do a good job in their space. It isn't that crazy to imagine them recommending using a startup they've invested in, and it's also possible to imagine them making a convincing case to a board that the startup is the best option available. They stil…

That's not a grey area at all. If you are a director and you are pushing your board to drive business to a company you have a significant stake in, you MUST disclose that. A grey area would be more like whether you should offer to leave the meeting while they discuss the proposal.

Yep, I agree. I was responding to the comment from ghaff that they "can't imagine any BoD would be cool" with a deal getting signed in a clear conflict of interest. I can imagine a board going along with it.

Of course, the conflict definitely needs to be disclosed!

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#87

Post by jsmith99 »

ghaff wrote: post #60
spenczar5 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could imagine some slippier cases. A lot of successful startup executives have a bunch of money and invest it in startups. They (of course) pick ones that they think will do a good job in their space. It isn't that crazy to imagine them recommending using a startup they've invested in, and it's also possible to imagine them making a convincing case to a board that the startup is the best option available. They stil…

I don't really disagree. Just because there's a potential conflict of interest doesn't mean there's corruption. And the further you get from large companies with internal audit teams and established procurement practices the fewer controls there are the murkier things can get. Per the peer comment, if you don't disclose the conflict, and let the BoD decide what to do in light of that conflict, then you're into the re…

It's the principal/agent problem. If the director is an agent of the shareholders then conflict of interest IS corruption unless you have some sort of safeguard to stop it affecting your behaviour.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#88

Post by ghaff »

spenczar5 wrote: post #86
jsmith99 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a grey area at all. If you are a director and you are pushing your board to drive business to a company you have a significant stake in, you MUST disclose that. A grey area would be more like whether you should offer to leave the meeting while they discuss the proposal.

Yep, I agree. I was responding to the comment from ghaff that they "can't imagine any BoD would be cool" with a deal getting signed in a clear conflict of interest. I can imagine a board going along with it. Of course, the conflict definitely needs to be disclosed!

Oh I agree. I was really talking about the kickback case as in here. There are other types of conflicts which happen and may be fine so long as the person in question isn't making the decision on their own and, as you say, has disclosed it.

Re: Former Netflix executive convicted of receiving bribes from contractors

#90

Post by bpodgursky »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #40
joshstrange wrote: post #11

> 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. I completely get how a startup would take this deal, however gross it is, but what I don't understand is how the exec got away with it from Netflix's side. And the fact this wasn't just 1 but 8 other startups he…

The journalist got it wrong. The startups weren't victims. They were clearly complicit in the crime. They could have very easily reported the bribery scheme to the Netflix board and gotten him fired, but they took the contract instead. The DOJ claimed that the people at Netflix who used the services assumed they were evaluating the services and not paying for them. There are many better articles about this story from…

> “The startups that paid to play, and possibly many others, believed this was how Netflix did business,” the prosecutors said.

You're actually accusing the prosecutor of getting it wrong... which seems a bit arrogant.

Post reply on HN