4 ms·
can someone with more knowledge of the legal code explain why no criminal charges? $3.45m - $3.1m - $0.082m = $268k profit Also getting to hold onto $3.4 mill
by theflork 11y ago
can someone with more knowledge of the legal code explain why no criminal charges?
$3.45m - $3.1m - $0.082m = $268k profit
Also getting to hold onto $3.4 million for the 8 year time period since 2008 would net some good returns as well.
- cheriot 11y agoThere's also the expenses for the other 62.5% of the contract, the taxes paid on the profits, and the business development to get the contract in the first place. I don't actually know how these things are calculated, though.
- zaroth 11y agoGood points. They are certainly not making out after the fines. Now I wonder, if the fine is tax deductible?
- jacalata 11y agoIt shouldn't be in general - http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/business-expenses-that-are-never-deductible.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/business-expenses-tha...
- ipsi 11y agoI can't explain why there were no criminal charges (likely because it's a breach of contract, which is not a criminal affair), but the remote company only performed about 35% of the work. If the actual contractor still had to do 65% of the work, the costs of that would be substantially higher than the 268K they have left after the fine. I know the US Government isn't super-efficient, but I cannot imagine that, even if they'd performed 100% of the work, it would only cost $412K - that would leave such a massive amount of room for competitors to come in and under-bid them. Or maybe it really did only cost them that much, and the Government is fining them 100% of the profits they made.