3 ms·

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 issu

by 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...

turc1656 9y ago
I believe what you said is a bit off - you can't get an obstruction charge for remaining silent or choosing (legally) not to cooperate. What Martha Stewart did was lie to authorities during the course of a formal investigation in an attempt to convince them that she did nothing wrong and end the investigation. That's completely and entirely different. It's also, by the way, the reason you should never speak to authorities, especially if you are the subject of the investigation. Exercise your right to silence. She chose to speak up and lied. If she kept her mouth shut she might have been able to escape prosecution. Anytime you open your mouth to authorities you open yourself up to one of these obstruction charges. The easiest solution is to just not cooperate one iota with them. Because as soon as you stop playing ball and doing what they want, they will try to use any one of the gazillion laws on the books to try and screw you. Not saying Martha is/was innocent. That's just my take on how I view a person's options when in that situation. Obstruction charges usually stem from providing false testimony or evidence, tampering with evidence, or witness tampering. None of those, nor any related actions, are applicable here.

by asr 9y ago

turc1656 9y ago

I believe what you said is a bit off - you can't get an obstruction charge for remaining silent or choosing (legally) not to cooperate. What Martha Stewart did was lie to authorities during the course of a formal investigation in an attempt to convince them that she did nothing wrong and end the investigation. That's completely and entirely different. It's also, by the way, the reason you should never speak to authorities, especially if you are the subject of the investigation. Exercise your right to silence. She chose to speak up and lied. If she kept her mouth shut she might have been able to escape prosecution. Anytime you open your mouth to authorities you open yourself up to one of these obstruction charges. The easiest solution is to just not cooperate one iota with them. Because as soon as you stop playing ball and doing what they want, they will try to use any one of the gazillion laws on the books to try and screw you. Not saying Martha is/was innocent. That's just my take on how I view a person's options when in that situation. Obstruction charges usually stem from providing false testimony or evidence, tampering with evidence, or witness tampering. None of those, nor any related actions, are applicable here.