3 ms·

The article also touches on the case where the person is not legally qualified to understand that what they have done is criminal. Or even to understand that wh

by wfo 9y ago

The article also touches on the case where the person is not legally qualified to understand that what they have done is criminal. Or even to understand that what the company is doing is criminal. Unfortunately it's a smaller part in the article and I think it makes a stronger case. What makes an even stronger case is that you can be prosecuted not only without wrongdoing but without any knowledge of wrongdoing. A better case is: you are a healthcare worker. A federal agent asks you about your ex-employer. You always had a bad feeling about that company but you put in your 40 hours for your paycheck and kids' health insurance. Perfectly willing to help the investigation, you answer truthfully. You are asked about a co-worker you slept with after you had met your girlfriend, but before you started dating. Your girlfriend is in the room. Thinking it doesn't matter and not wanting to discuss it with a stranger in front of your girlfriend, you lie. Turns out the co-worker was involved. If the prosecutor decides he doesn't like you, congratulations you are now a federal felon. You don't even need a fun story about a personal relationship: say you misremember something. Or someone else does, and contradicts your truthful story but the feds think you're the one who's lying. Also I'm not sure the label "criminal" is a useful one. It's almost certainly the case that every adult US citizen is a criminal. They simply haven't been caught yet. Every modern US president has admitted in public to being a criminal (drugs). The expanse of laws is so vast, vague, complex, interpretable and arbitrary it's impossible to not break one. If there were consequences for every lawbreaking act, everyone would be in jail and there would be no-one left to prosecute or to do the prosecuting.

tptacek 9y ago
I'm not sure I follow your example but I'm sure it's better than the one given in the article, where an employee knowingly and deliberately facilitates fraud, begrudgingly, in order to collect a paycheck. I agree that the labels aren't helpful, but it's vitally important to society that employees don't kid themselves about their responsibility (and culpability). Many employees are paid and treated abusively by their employers. Nonetheless, they cannot allow themselves to become instruments of crimes.
jdmichal 9y ago
> You don't even need a fun story about a personal relationship: say you misremember something. To be fair, the statute does say you must knowingly and willingly be lying. Theoretically, that would be on the feds to prove. Of course, I don't think it's possible to prove whether someone knows something. But if they can prove that you at one time did know, or with a perfect memory should have known... I don't know how that works. Would it be a coin flip at that point whether the jury would believe that you simply "misremembered"?
- vkou 9y ago
  They could probably find Billy, who: 1. Worked with you. 2. Is neck-deep in the criminal enterprise. 3. Is testifying for the promise of leniency of immunity. 4. And is quite happy to throw the CEO, the CFO, and, since the FBI asked him about your name, you under the bus. Regardless of whether or not his claims are true, he will be happy to testify that yes, you absolutely knew about the criminality, because you discussed it with him at lunch, and did nothing about it. This may, or may not be true. He may or may not have misremembered this conversation. He may be trying to save his ass. Either way, it's your word against his, and the prosecutor, who pleads to the jury that there is no possible way you didn't know about your involvement. You may well be found innocent, but you never want to put yourself in this position. Talking to the police is just giving them more rope to try to hang you with.

by wfo 9y ago

tptacek 9y ago

I'm not sure I follow your example but I'm sure it's better than the one given in the article, where an employee knowingly and deliberately facilitates fraud, begrudgingly, in order to collect a paycheck. I agree that the labels aren't helpful, but it's vitally important to society that employees don't kid themselves about their responsibility (and culpability). Many employees are paid and treated abusively by their employers. Nonetheless, they cannot allow themselves to become instruments of crimes.

jdmichal 9y ago

> You don't even need a fun story about a personal relationship: say you misremember something. To be fair, the statute does say you must knowingly and willingly be lying. Theoretically, that would be on the feds to prove. Of course, I don't think it's possible to prove whether someone knows something. But if they can prove that you at one time did know, or with a perfect memory should have known... I don't know how that works. Would it be a coin flip at that point whether the jury would believe that you simply "misremembered"?

vkou 9y ago
They could probably find Billy, who: 1. Worked with you. 2. Is neck-deep in the criminal enterprise. 3. Is testifying for the promise of leniency of immunity. 4. And is quite happy to throw the CEO, the CFO, and, since the FBI asked him about your name, you under the bus. Regardless of whether or not his claims are true, he will be happy to testify that yes, you absolutely knew about the criminality, because you discussed it with him at lunch, and did nothing about it. This may, or may not be true. He may or may not have misremembered this conversation. He may be trying to save his ass. Either way, it's your word against his, and the prosecutor, who pleads to the jury that there is no possible way you didn't know about your involvement. You may well be found innocent, but you never want to put yourself in this position. Talking to the police is just giving them more rope to try to hang you with.