15 ms·

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 s

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 it (which has a variety of other RICO implications.) 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. 3. Charging Uber under RICO would by no means be unusual or a stretch; this is a quite run of the mill application of these laws. (eg see Preet Bharara's RICO prosecutions: https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosections&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=preet+bharara+rico+prosecutions https://www.google.com/search?q=preet+bharara+rico+prosectio... ) 4. This is unquestionably a federal matter, within the DOJ's jurisdiction. Uber operates across state lines--and used Greyball in multiple jurisdictions. That said, Uber could & likely will face criminal investigation in other jurisdictions. 5. Finally, this is definitely not Trump's revenge on Travis. Not only does it simply not work that way--USAs are independent & it'd be beyond illegal, but this specific USA was appointed by Obama. (There were two Trump didn't fire; USA Stretch is one of them) (*And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, many years ago, I worked at the Department of Justice)

tossaway322 9y ago
Just looked up RICO on Wikipedia and it has indeed been used in some dioceses to prosecute the Roman Catholic Church for the pedophilia and coverup that has occurred within the Church's clergy! The relevant excerpt: "Catholic sex abuse cases[edit] In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston, prior to his assignment to Vatican City.[11][12] In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in Pennsylvania.[13]" So RICO can be used for both criminal and civil charges?
obstinate 9y ago
> 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 same crime otherwise. Neither corporations nor private citizens can use a defense like, "it was civil disobedience," to avoid criminal liability. This has nothing to do with corporations being people or not. Could you please bring your lawyerly knowledge to bear and correct whatever deficiencies in understanding I have here?
- mastax 9y ago
  Wikipedia can help maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_implications_of_civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_impli... > Governments have generally not recognized the legitimacy of civil disobedience or viewed political objectives as an excuse for breaking the law. Specifically, the law usually distinguishes between criminal motive and criminal intent; the offender's motives or purposes may be admirable and praiseworthy, but his intent may still be criminal. Hence the saying that "if there is any possible justification of civil disobedience it must come from outside the legal system." See also the Necessity Defense (the above mentioned "political necessity") [0] and Jury Nullification [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit...
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  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 things. 2) "The law" is also too vague. Sometimes intent is relevant, sometimes its not; it just depends on what the law itself says. 3) Civil disobedience is not (as far as I know-there's a lot of laws) a defense for law-breaking, but, it may mitigate punishment or liability for a human. This depends on many things, ranging from the law, to the jurisdiction, to the facts of the case. 4) The distinction I was trying to make was: unlike people, companies do not engage in civil disobedience and a court will not allow a company to claim otherwise, be it as defense or as liability mitigation. Hope that answers your question?
will_brown 9y ago
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, city that were actively citing drivers for legal violations. Worse the drivers usually use a Lawyer selected and paid for by Uber, and guess what that lawyer isn't some independent traffic lawyer it's Uber's FL lobbyist. Though these charges are years old, last I check none were resolved and still $2M-$3M in fines owed to Miami. To this day in Miami, it's not uncommon for drivers to allow undocumented immigrants without drivers licenses to use their Uber car/account.
- illumin8 9y ago
  I've recently noticed a huge decline in the quality of Uber drivers. In 2012, when I first started using Uber, most of the drivers were college educated millennials driving a brand new Toyota Prius. They were friendly and nice to have a conversation with while you drove. Today, the drivers I get on UberX are almost universally bad. You get a 10 year old vehicle that is poorly maintained and unsafe (last couple rides have been a 2006 Ford Escape and a 2005 Chevy Bronco; both had bad tires and suspension and numerous dashboard warning lights lit). The drivers are immigrants with very poor english, who didn't have an EZ Pass for the tolls, and most likely were borrowing their friend or family member's car. Unless I really have to now, I'm avoiding Uber and driving myself to the airport. Uber has proven they don't care about passenger safety, and only care about profits.
  - chronic940 9y ago
    > Unless I really have to now, I'm avoiding Uber and driving myself to the airport. Uber has proven they don't care about passenger safety, and only care about profits. You do that. Me and the tens of thousands other riders will continue to use Uber for airport trips despite owning a car. I just wanted to counter your antecdote with mine.
crush-n-spread 9y ago
Hi, what does USA stand for in this case?
- mmmBacon 9y ago
  United States Attorney. from Wikipedia: United States Attorneys (also known as chief federal prosecutors and, historically, as United States District Attorneys)[1][2][3] represent the United States federal government in United States district court and United States court of appeals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- genericpseudo 9y ago
  US Attorney.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- credit_guy 9y ago
  United States Attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/meet-us-attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/meet-us-attorney
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
holly4 9y ago
Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.
- drawnwren 9y ago
  What happened in 2008?
  - V-eHGsd_ 9y ago
    the great recession. he/she is talking about bankers.
  - lioeters 9y ago
    I'm guessing financial crisis precipitated by corporate crime/fraud on massive scale, going unpunished?
    - drawnwren 9y ago
      Oh that seems reasonable. I'm not really sure it was so obvious that I deserved down votes.
      - HenryBemis 9y ago
        I gave you an up-vote.. it makes sense that "2008 means financial crisis" but on the other hand many things happened in 2008 and not all of them had to do with that crisis. Especially if you are not in Financial Services. One would argue that the crisis started a lot earlier, or that in many countries the actual crisis became apparent in 2009-2010-2011. Not everyone in this forum lives in the USA and people should remember that :)
        GrinningFool 9y ago
        In addition 2008 was 9 years ago. There are people here today that were 7 or 8 years old at the time. They might know that things were rough if a parent lost a job - but are unlikely to have the wider context.
easilyBored 9y ago
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. Why do people still argue that? It makes no sense to me, even as a non-lawyer (but I've watched People's Court :)) Otherwise El Chapo could be arguing the same, I believe in people's rights to use drugs so I'm breaking every law in the books and making billions "while fighting for their rights"
- eropple 9y ago
  Most people don't know what civil disobedience is in the first place. Civics education in the United States isn't great; even landmark civil disobedience like in the Sixties often elides that these folks paid the piper for their actions. Hell, I never read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail until college. (Goes without saying that Uber's attempts to make their VCs happy are weak tea in comparison, yeah?)
  - danaliv 9y ago
    Indeed, I was taught very clearly that civil disobedience includes accepting punishment, and that this is a very, very important facet of it. (Noted not to dispute your point about civics education, but to stress this to other people who may not have been taught this.)
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      I thought the same, and even had a post written... But then found a counter-example: What about people in Nazi Germany hiding others? They were of course very secretive about it -- not being secretive certainly meant you and your charges being sent to a camp, and possibly outright death. Similar things happened with the underground railroad in the US. I would still gladly classify those people as civil disobedients. Maybe there's a difference when you're protecting others? You can't risk being discovered, because then those who depend on you will also likely be discovered, and you won't be available to continue helping.
padiyar83 9y ago
But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports and city councils. And UBER does provide a valuable service to its users. I hate to go back to the days of having to call a yellow taxi cab to take me to the airport and then wonder if they would show up in time or not. //corrected a typo
- ckastner 9y ago
  How does that justify the alleged obstruction of justice?
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    Morally, it is a question of if the legal system is delivering justice or not. Obstructing the legal system when it fails to provide justice is not obstructing justice in a number of moral or ethical views. Consider a case where the legal system was attempting to enforce property rights involving slavery and an individual obstructed the system. Many would consider this justified obstruction of justice because they are morally opposed to what the legal system is trying to do. (I'm not trying to say what Uber is doing is anything like the example I gave, I was only trying to give an extreme example where many readers would at least see how people would feel it justified the obstruction of justice.) Legally, it doesn't at all.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Playing in an unfair world doesn't justify making it significantly more unfair by throwing out the rulebook.
- metaphorm 9y ago
  the U.S. is a constitutional republic and is governed by the rule of law. if a law is unfair, the constitutional remedy for it is the legislative process, not breaking the law.
xanderjanz 9y ago
Here's a better metaphor. If a local city inspector is looking to catch a pizza shop selling liquor without a special license, and calls to order beer, the shop owner recognizes the caller ID, lies, and says he doesn't sell beer right now but he should call back tomorrow. But then later, the town votes to remove the special license requirement. Did the pizza shop obstruct justice?
- avar 9y ago
  In order for this metaphor to work it would have to be a chain of pizza parlors in many states, and it wouldn't have been the owner who answered the phone, but any number of employees trained by the company to react this way to their local city inspectors.
  - kartickv 9y ago
    Why is it okay for the owner to do this, but not an employee? Why is it okay if you have just one shop rather than a chain?
    - ingenuous2 9y ago
      For the latter, because that indicates a criminal enterprise. The idea of a coordinated group of people all breaking the law is deemed worse than one individual. I can reconcile this with my own values. Practically, an enterprise of criminals is more likely to be effective, and thus would create more negative costs. Legally, it allows prosecution of the organizers of a crime group, who are likely the most dangerous and more difficult to catch in the act, as they contract others to do their work.
    - avar 9y ago
      Uber is being tried federally because their crimes cross state lines, which wouldn't be the case with one pizza parlor operating locally in one state engaging in the same behavior.
      - underdown 9y ago
briantakita 9y ago
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?
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but, plea bargains do not involve providing unrelated user data to the feds or cooperating in future unrelated matters..
cmdrfred 9y ago
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...
turc1656 9y ago
While I am not a lawyer like you, I think there is reason to believe #1 may not necessarily as straightforward as it seems. At minimum, there can definitely be a case made to support Uber. Evasion generally has to do with mandatory liabilities and provisions. For example - tax avoidance and evasion. It's legal to plan your activities to avoid incurring a tax. It's illegal to take an action that results in a tax liability and then not pay it or attempt to hide it. For me, what Uber did is akin to avoiding roads that are known speed traps. Yes, Uber is required to obey the laws of the jurisdiction they are in, but they are also able to deny service to anyone for any reason so long as that reason does not fall under a protected class (age, race, gender, etc.). Refusing service for being a suspected member of law enforcement is allowed. Just as certain small businesses provide discounts to law enforcement in appreciation of their service, others can refuse to serve them. The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal. It sounds to me (and has been stated elsewhere) that many of the jurisdictions where this was being used have unclear or incomplete ride-sharing and booking laws. This would make the activities by Uber up for legal debate, just like the Uber legal battle in CA on whether to classify drivers as employees or contractors. If there's not a consensus or existing legal precedent that a specific activity is illegal, you can't say that their activity is evasion because the activity they are trying to "hide" hasn't been ruled in court to actually be illegal because this situation is still relatively new and hasn't been adjudicated on yet. Once we have a decision by the courts on the underlying activity, then yes, using Greyball to avoid authorities would be illegal.
- asr 9y ago
  The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal. That's not quite right. The issue of whether or not Uber tried to hide activities from authorities is separate from whether the activity was itself illegal. It's possible to face an obstruction of justice charge even if the investigation you are obstructing is looking at legal activity or ultimately does not result in a prosecution. For example, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice (and lying and conspiracy) even though she was not actually charged with insider trading.[1] [1] http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-did-wrong/ http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-d...
arzt 9y ago
Has another consumer tech company with any visibility ever been charged under RICO?
- gotothedoctor 9y ago
  This looks like a simple & potentially enlightening question, but, its more complicated than it appears & examples may only be more confusing:) Companies (tech & other) are sued literally all the time under RICO (which is now over 40 years old), though mostly as civil rather than criminal offenses. Success rates vary. Often there are better ways than RICO. And, also, most cases never make it to court. Basically, prosecutors choose the charges they seek to prosecute based on their judgement of the likelihood of conviction; RICO can effectively multiply the number of charges...which some judges are less keen on. There are many factors at play with RICO, but they won't clarify anything, so I'll leave it there. It is certainly not clear that the DoJ will even prosecute Uber under RICO. Its a possibility, but perhaps not the most likely approach, for a variety of reasons. That said, its far from impossible. And, some USAs use RICO more than others (eg Preet Bharara). Long story short: criminal investigations & charges are the issue, more than whether they are charged under RICO. Being criminal investigated is rare in most businesses (less so on Wall St? Idk, speculating) and being prosecuted, even rarer. Hope this helps.

tossaway322 9y ago

Just looked up RICO on Wikipedia and it has indeed been used in some dioceses to prosecute the Roman Catholic Church for the pedophilia and coverup that has occurred within the Church's clergy! The relevant excerpt: "Catholic sex abuse cases[edit] In some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. E.g. a Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Notably, a similar suit was not filed against Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop/Emeritus of Boston, prior to his assignment to Vatican City.[11][12] In 2016, RICO charges were considered for cover-ups in Pennsylvania.[13]" So RICO can be used for both criminal and civil charges?

obstinate 9y ago

> 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 same crime otherwise. Neither corporations nor private citizens can use a defense like, "it was civil disobedience," to avoid criminal liability. This has nothing to do with corporations being people or not. Could you please bring your lawyerly knowledge to bear and correct whatever deficiencies in understanding I have here?

mastax 9y ago
Wikipedia can help maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_implications_of_civil_disobedience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience#Legal_impli... > Governments have generally not recognized the legitimacy of civil disobedience or viewed political objectives as an excuse for breaking the law. Specifically, the law usually distinguishes between criminal motive and criminal intent; the offender's motives or purposes may be admirable and praiseworthy, but his intent may still be criminal. Hence the saying that "if there is any possible justification of civil disobedience it must come from outside the legal system." See also the Necessity Defense (the above mentioned "political necessity") [0] and Jury Nullification [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unit...
gotothedoctor 9y ago
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 things. 2) "The law" is also too vague. Sometimes intent is relevant, sometimes its not; it just depends on what the law itself says. 3) Civil disobedience is not (as far as I know-there's a lot of laws) a defense for law-breaking, but, it may mitigate punishment or liability for a human. This depends on many things, ranging from the law, to the jurisdiction, to the facts of the case. 4) The distinction I was trying to make was: unlike people, companies do not engage in civil disobedience and a court will not allow a company to claim otherwise, be it as defense or as liability mitigation. Hope that answers your question?

will_brown 9y ago

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, city that were actively citing drivers for legal violations. Worse the drivers usually use a Lawyer selected and paid for by Uber, and guess what that lawyer isn't some independent traffic lawyer it's Uber's FL lobbyist. Though these charges are years old, last I check none were resolved and still $2M-$3M in fines owed to Miami. To this day in Miami, it's not uncommon for drivers to allow undocumented immigrants without drivers licenses to use their Uber car/account.

illumin8 9y ago
I've recently noticed a huge decline in the quality of Uber drivers. In 2012, when I first started using Uber, most of the drivers were college educated millennials driving a brand new Toyota Prius. They were friendly and nice to have a conversation with while you drove. Today, the drivers I get on UberX are almost universally bad. You get a 10 year old vehicle that is poorly maintained and unsafe (last couple rides have been a 2006 Ford Escape and a 2005 Chevy Bronco; both had bad tires and suspension and numerous dashboard warning lights lit). The drivers are immigrants with very poor english, who didn't have an EZ Pass for the tolls, and most likely were borrowing their friend or family member's car. Unless I really have to now, I'm avoiding Uber and driving myself to the airport. Uber has proven they don't care about passenger safety, and only care about profits.
- chronic940 9y ago
  > Unless I really have to now, I'm avoiding Uber and driving myself to the airport. Uber has proven they don't care about passenger safety, and only care about profits. You do that. Me and the tens of thousands other riders will continue to use Uber for airport trips despite owning a car. I just wanted to counter your antecdote with mine.

crush-n-spread 9y ago

Hi, what does USA stand for in this case?

mmmBacon 9y ago
United States Attorney. from Wikipedia: United States Attorneys (also known as chief federal prosecutors and, historically, as United States District Attorneys)[1][2][3] represent the United States federal government in United States district court and United States court of appeals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
genericpseudo 9y ago
US Attorney.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
credit_guy 9y ago
United States Attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/meet-us-attorney https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/meet-us-attorney
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

holly4 9y ago

Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.

drawnwren 9y ago
What happened in 2008?
- V-eHGsd_ 9y ago
  the great recession. he/she is talking about bankers.
- lioeters 9y ago
  I'm guessing financial crisis precipitated by corporate crime/fraud on massive scale, going unpunished?
  - drawnwren 9y ago
    Oh that seems reasonable. I'm not really sure it was so obvious that I deserved down votes.
    - HenryBemis 9y ago
      I gave you an up-vote.. it makes sense that "2008 means financial crisis" but on the other hand many things happened in 2008 and not all of them had to do with that crisis. Especially if you are not in Financial Services. One would argue that the crisis started a lot earlier, or that in many countries the actual crisis became apparent in 2009-2010-2011. Not everyone in this forum lives in the USA and people should remember that :)
      - GrinningFool 9y ago
        In addition 2008 was 9 years ago. There are people here today that were 7 or 8 years old at the time. They might know that things were rough if a parent lost a job - but are unlikely to have the wider context.

easilyBored 9y ago

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. Why do people still argue that? It makes no sense to me, even as a non-lawyer (but I've watched People's Court :)) Otherwise El Chapo could be arguing the same, I believe in people's rights to use drugs so I'm breaking every law in the books and making billions "while fighting for their rights"

eropple 9y ago
Most people don't know what civil disobedience is in the first place. Civics education in the United States isn't great; even landmark civil disobedience like in the Sixties often elides that these folks paid the piper for their actions. Hell, I never read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail until college. (Goes without saying that Uber's attempts to make their VCs happy are weak tea in comparison, yeah?)
- danaliv 9y ago
  Indeed, I was taught very clearly that civil disobedience includes accepting punishment, and that this is a very, very important facet of it. (Noted not to dispute your point about civics education, but to stress this to other people who may not have been taught this.)
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    I thought the same, and even had a post written... But then found a counter-example: What about people in Nazi Germany hiding others? They were of course very secretive about it -- not being secretive certainly meant you and your charges being sent to a camp, and possibly outright death. Similar things happened with the underground railroad in the US. I would still gladly classify those people as civil disobedients. Maybe there's a difference when you're protecting others? You can't risk being discovered, because then those who depend on you will also likely be discovered, and you won't be available to continue helping.

padiyar83 9y ago

But remember, UBER was playing in an unfair world. A world in which the existing Taxi companies had entrenched monopolies and yearly contracts with airports and city councils. And UBER does provide a valuable service to its users. I hate to go back to the days of having to call a yellow taxi cab to take me to the airport and then wonder if they would show up in time or not. //corrected a typo

ckastner 9y ago
How does that justify the alleged obstruction of justice?
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Morally, it is a question of if the legal system is delivering justice or not. Obstructing the legal system when it fails to provide justice is not obstructing justice in a number of moral or ethical views. Consider a case where the legal system was attempting to enforce property rights involving slavery and an individual obstructed the system. Many would consider this justified obstruction of justice because they are morally opposed to what the legal system is trying to do. (I'm not trying to say what Uber is doing is anything like the example I gave, I was only trying to give an extreme example where many readers would at least see how people would feel it justified the obstruction of justice.) Legally, it doesn't at all.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
Playing in an unfair world doesn't justify making it significantly more unfair by throwing out the rulebook.
metaphorm 9y ago
the U.S. is a constitutional republic and is governed by the rule of law. if a law is unfair, the constitutional remedy for it is the legislative process, not breaking the law.

xanderjanz 9y ago

Here's a better metaphor. If a local city inspector is looking to catch a pizza shop selling liquor without a special license, and calls to order beer, the shop owner recognizes the caller ID, lies, and says he doesn't sell beer right now but he should call back tomorrow. But then later, the town votes to remove the special license requirement. Did the pizza shop obstruct justice?

avar 9y ago
In order for this metaphor to work it would have to be a chain of pizza parlors in many states, and it wouldn't have been the owner who answered the phone, but any number of employees trained by the company to react this way to their local city inspectors.
- kartickv 9y ago
  Why is it okay for the owner to do this, but not an employee? Why is it okay if you have just one shop rather than a chain?
  - ingenuous2 9y ago
    For the latter, because that indicates a criminal enterprise. The idea of a coordinated group of people all breaking the law is deemed worse than one individual. I can reconcile this with my own values. Practically, an enterprise of criminals is more likely to be effective, and thus would create more negative costs. Legally, it allows prosecution of the organizers of a crime group, who are likely the most dangerous and more difficult to catch in the act, as they contract others to do their work.
  - avar 9y ago
    Uber is being tried federally because their crimes cross state lines, which wouldn't be the case with one pizza parlor operating locally in one state engaging in the same behavior.
    - underdown 9y ago

briantakita 9y ago

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?

gotothedoctor 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but, plea bargains do not involve providing unrelated user data to the feds or cooperating in future unrelated matters..

cmdrfred 9y ago

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-dammit/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/14/lawsplainer-its-not-rico-...

turc1656 9y ago

While I am not a lawyer like you, I think there is reason to believe #1 may not necessarily as straightforward as it seems. At minimum, there can definitely be a case made to support Uber. Evasion generally has to do with mandatory liabilities and provisions. For example - tax avoidance and evasion. It's legal to plan your activities to avoid incurring a tax. It's illegal to take an action that results in a tax liability and then not pay it or attempt to hide it. For me, what Uber did is akin to avoiding roads that are known speed traps. Yes, Uber is required to obey the laws of the jurisdiction they are in, but they are also able to deny service to anyone for any reason so long as that reason does not fall under a protected class (age, race, gender, etc.). Refusing service for being a suspected member of law enforcement is allowed. Just as certain small businesses provide discounts to law enforcement in appreciation of their service, others can refuse to serve them. The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal. It sounds to me (and has been stated elsewhere) that many of the jurisdictions where this was being used have unclear or incomplete ride-sharing and booking laws. This would make the activities by Uber up for legal debate, just like the Uber legal battle in CA on whether to classify drivers as employees or contractors. If there's not a consensus or existing legal precedent that a specific activity is illegal, you can't say that their activity is evasion because the activity they are trying to "hide" hasn't been ruled in court to actually be illegal because this situation is still relatively new and hasn't been adjudicated on yet. Once we have a decision by the courts on the underlying activity, then yes, using Greyball to avoid authorities would be illegal.

asr 9y ago
The issue of whether or not what Uber did was illegal seems to hinge upon whether or not the underlying activity was illegal. That's not quite right. The issue of whether or not Uber tried to hide activities from authorities is separate from whether the activity was itself illegal. It's possible to face an obstruction of justice charge even if the investigation you are obstructing is looking at legal activity or ultimately does not result in a prosecution. For example, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstruction of justice (and lying and conspiracy) even though she was not actually charged with insider trading.[1] [1] http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-did-wrong/ http://coveringbusiness.com/2012/05/15/what-martha-stewart-d...

arzt 9y ago

Has another consumer tech company with any visibility ever been charged under RICO?

gotothedoctor 9y ago
This looks like a simple & potentially enlightening question, but, its more complicated than it appears & examples may only be more confusing:) Companies (tech & other) are sued literally all the time under RICO (which is now over 40 years old), though mostly as civil rather than criminal offenses. Success rates vary. Often there are better ways than RICO. And, also, most cases never make it to court. Basically, prosecutors choose the charges they seek to prosecute based on their judgement of the likelihood of conviction; RICO can effectively multiply the number of charges...which some judges are less keen on. There are many factors at play with RICO, but they won't clarify anything, so I'll leave it there. It is certainly not clear that the DoJ will even prosecute Uber under RICO. Its a possibility, but perhaps not the most likely approach, for a variety of reasons. That said, its far from impossible. And, some USAs use RICO more than others (eg Preet Bharara). Long story short: criminal investigations & charges are the issue, more than whether they are charged under RICO. Being criminal investigated is rare in most businesses (less so on Wall St? Idk, speculating) and being prosecuted, even rarer. Hope this helps.