5 ms·

if WU agreed to a settlement of this size, its pretty safe to say that there's at least a good chance it would have been proven.

• cmdrfred 10y ago
  Or the settlement is well under the profit made from the crime.
  • geon 10y ago
    That is irrelevant. They wouldn't settle if they could get away with not paying anything.
    • cmdrfred 10y ago
      Say you rob a bank for 1 million. The federal government offers you a deal that if you pay 100k you will be free and clear of all charges. You don't take that deal? You'd prefer to risk a decade in prison (at 10k a year)?
      • cm2187 10y ago
        That decision should be independent on whether there was 1 million or 10k in the bank when you robbed it. The proceeds from the robbery is a sunk cost (well in this case a profit). Your decision should be purely based on forward cash flows and outcome, you pay 100k or you do not and you take the risk to do jail time.
        • cmdrfred 10y ago
          I never considered it that way but that makes sense.
        • sjy 10y ago
          Whether you stole 1M or 10k makes a big difference to the expected utility of a 100k loss, which is obvious if you consider someone who doesn't actually have 100k left to spend on a fine.
• lmm 10y ago
  What kind of "good chance"? 20%? 5%? The economics probably favour settling even if it's as low as that.