3 ms·
You realize that since 2-3 years it is now standard legal practice to make sure deciders don't know the details of important decisions. They know the decision,
by candiodari 8y ago
You realize that since 2-3 years it is now standard legal practice to make sure deciders don't know the details of important decisions. They know the decision, of course, and what was chosen, and they decide.
But they don't know who the email was sent to to implement the decision. Or they don't know the law firm depositing it. Or they only generally know the numbers involved, and have since destroyed the exact numbers (email and any paper copies). This is done explicitly so they can truthfully answer "I don't know" to nearly every question.
Given how governments are going after companies, and how politicized everything, including testimonies at the police, have become, I can't say I blame them. Even if an answer is true, and not criminal, but somehow controversial, it will end up in the media. I can't say I blame them. We need to get back to the situation that it just doesn't happen that any statement leaks from investigations, at the very least unless the person is found guilty, and even then, only if strictly relevant to the crime.
For example the many times ceo's have been called to "testify" on tax minimization strategies, knowing full well the IRS (controlled and of course authorized by the government) has come to an agreement about those taxes, and that agreement has passed through the hands of elected politicians. The only purpose is to demonize these people without admitting that the government created half the controversies.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoAnecdata: my sister proposed automated tire sensors for a trucking firm to the President of said firm. They asked "If a tire comes off a truck on the highway and causes an accident or fatality, will this sensor be able to show if the tire was incorrectly mounted or had bad pressure?" She replied, "Yes, exactly". They then said "Then we definitely don't want this on our trucks" This was 15 years ago.
- est31 8y agoThat's because in the trucking industry, at least here in europe, there is fierce competition. This means that companies that don't use material and employees until their absolute limits are being filtered out by market forces. The only way to improve the situation is by government involvement, both through stricter laws and more regular controls. E.g. there are rules to prevent exhaustion of truck drivers by mandating pauses for certain lengths. Or in Germany there's a discussion now whether turning assistants should be made mandatory or not.
- seren 8y agoIsn't it simply shifting the blame downwards ? Because someone from Legal will have sent the dubious request to the law firm, for example, and the law firm can clearly find it in its archive ?
- perpetualpatzer 8y ago>You realize that since 2-3 years it is now standard legal practice to make sure deciders don't know the details of important decisions. What leads you to believe this? You mention a specific time period as if there is some event that caused it to be the case, but I'm not sure what that event would be, nor have I seen this in action in my career.
- dekhn 8y agoReading your comment, I'm having a hard time parsing it. I think you're saying that she had some sort of plausible deniability. That's not correct; it's clear she was deeply culpable with direct knowledge of large amounts of fraudulent activity.