4 ms·

It looks like a pretty nice outcome for CA, no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges, instead they're limited to just constraints on future actio

by munk-a 7y ago

It looks like a pretty nice outcome for CA, no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges, instead they're limited to just constraints on future actions - additionally CA has filed for bankruptcy and there is no initiative I can see in this order that goes after original investors as having conspired on these charges, so they'll lose their investment but that was probably a write off anyways.

sigstoat 7y ago
> no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges can the FTC or whoever else is involved _at_ _this_ _stage_ even file criminal charges against individuals? we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" variety whenever a government body that can't file criminal charges fails to do so.
- vermontdevil 7y ago
  I’m sure they can refer to Justice Department to go down that path?
  - deadmutex 7y ago
    If you're sure, why does your reply end in a question mark?
    - justrobert 7y ago
      Your issue is with a person using spoken English in a text medium. No way to convey intonation in text so people often use a question mark to convey it.
      - bcoates 7y ago
        It's not an intonation thing, the idiom is "Surely (conditionally true statement)?" and uppost was verbing for some reason
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      I'm with you buddy, people putting question marks at the end of statements is obnoxious.
- tyingq 7y ago
  They have a liason department that has that mission: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit
- shaneprrlt 7y ago
  They're known for imposing fines that are minuscule relative to the amount of damage whoever they're investigating caused. For most deceptive operations large enough to land on the FTC's radar, whatever fines they might end up paying are considered a speeding ticket and cost of doing business. It's sad, really. They're also known for being massively understaffed relative to the amount of complaints they receive.
  - dylan604 7y ago
    So what is the difference between CA, corporate banks, etc that are corporations that "shield" the employees from personally facing criminal action, and me running out to file an LLC/SCorp/etc to do illegal activities myself? Is it purely the size of their bank accounts?
    - wahern 7y ago
      It's the size of an organization and the complexity of the enterprise. Large, sophisticated corporations effectively shield executives from personal criminal liability because decision making is more diffuse--or at least they have an easier time arguing that. If a prosecutor could establish that a Fortune 500 CEO had the same, unmoderated role in criminal activity as the CEO of a one man shell company, then he'd be just as easy to prosecute and undoubtedly would--that'd make the careers of the D.A. and the attorneys working the case. There aren't many (or any?) laws that criminalize scheming, amoral profiteers who effectively (but not literally) promote a culture of lawlessness. Even if you write them they'd be very hard to prosecute--Due Process protections are strong in the US and Anglosphere systems, at least if you have the money and wherewithal. A bigger problem is that executives and board members are financially shielded, often through corporate-bought personal liability insurance. Maybe things would get better if there were laws mandating clawbacks, with independent agents[1] tasked with drafting the contracts and enforcing clawbacks, and perhaps somehow preventing executives from insuring themselves, such as with mandatory right of recourse clauses (i.e. insurer can always recover their payouts from the insured, making them more like guarantors). This aspect of corporate law is really complex though because it touches on so many subject areas. And stuff like this has been tried--it's how we ended up with corporate-bought personal insurance policies, a response to a brief period where executives and board members found themselves financially exposed during the early years of professional shareholder lawsuits. [1] Even though technically this is supposed to be the responsibility of board members. But that's an even thornier problem.
- akira2501 7y ago
  > even file criminal charges against individuals? Usually it would be recommended to FBI for legal review, and if they find that laws were broken, then referred to the DOJ for prosecution. > we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" If you committed a crime, whether violent or financial, then you should be prosecuted. It's disheartening to see government lawyers give away the candy store every time just so they can secure a "quick" negotiation and move on with their jobs. Unless people have _real_ disincentives to break the law.. guess what? They're just going to break the law and hide behind their money for as long as we let them. This needs to change or we're going to experience the 1930s again.
lvs 7y ago
I think you misunderstand what the FTC does. The FTC does not have the power to charge individuals under criminal indictments.
- munk-a 7y ago
  The FTC has the ability to recommend charges and often will name and shame involved parties - additionally the FTC could extend the liability for these fines to the backers of CA if they chose to and that'd honestly send a ridiculously strong message - investing in something this shady should really break out of the standard liability agreements of a corporation and extend to personal assets. If the investors behind CA were aware of the shady business CA was trying to do (and all signs point strongly to yes in this case) then they conspired. If they conspired they should be prosecuted accordingly and this seems like a good and easy charge to press.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Id' be interested in some examples of past recommendations from the FTC that lead to indictments or at least investigations.
  - lvs 7y ago
    They could potentially refer, but they would at best be referring for further investigation since many of the investigative tools necessary to pursue individual criminal indictments are not available to them. The FTC is limited to administrative powers and can take civil actions -- that's it. As far as going after investors for fines, I've never heard of such an attempt by the FTC against backers of an LLC, and I suspect that would be tied up in courts and legally inviable. It's nice to fantasize about regulators making these kinds of smackdowns, but their real world powers are quite limited by statute and case law.
shakna 7y ago
> instead they're limited to just constraints on future actions Just as a small reminder: CA is officially shutting down. [0] They're also re-emerging as Emerdata. [1] (Same people, same office, different name and registration.) [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43983958 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43983958 [1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/02/cambridge_analytica_shutdown/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/02/cambridge_analytica...

by munk-a 7y ago

sigstoat 7y ago

> no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges can the FTC or whoever else is involved _at_ _this_ _stage_ even file criminal charges against individuals? we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" variety whenever a government body that can't file criminal charges fails to do so.

vermontdevil 7y ago
I’m sure they can refer to Justice Department to go down that path?
- deadmutex 7y ago
  If you're sure, why does your reply end in a question mark?
  - justrobert 7y ago
    Your issue is with a person using spoken English in a text medium. No way to convey intonation in text so people often use a question mark to convey it.
    - bcoates 7y ago
      It's not an intonation thing, the idiom is "Surely (conditionally true statement)?" and uppost was verbing for some reason
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    I'm with you buddy, people putting question marks at the end of statements is obnoxious.
tyingq 7y ago
They have a liason department that has that mission: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit
shaneprrlt 7y ago
They're known for imposing fines that are minuscule relative to the amount of damage whoever they're investigating caused. For most deceptive operations large enough to land on the FTC's radar, whatever fines they might end up paying are considered a speeding ticket and cost of doing business. It's sad, really. They're also known for being massively understaffed relative to the amount of complaints they receive.
- dylan604 7y ago
  So what is the difference between CA, corporate banks, etc that are corporations that "shield" the employees from personally facing criminal action, and me running out to file an LLC/SCorp/etc to do illegal activities myself? Is it purely the size of their bank accounts?
  - wahern 7y ago
    It's the size of an organization and the complexity of the enterprise. Large, sophisticated corporations effectively shield executives from personal criminal liability because decision making is more diffuse--or at least they have an easier time arguing that. If a prosecutor could establish that a Fortune 500 CEO had the same, unmoderated role in criminal activity as the CEO of a one man shell company, then he'd be just as easy to prosecute and undoubtedly would--that'd make the careers of the D.A. and the attorneys working the case. There aren't many (or any?) laws that criminalize scheming, amoral profiteers who effectively (but not literally) promote a culture of lawlessness. Even if you write them they'd be very hard to prosecute--Due Process protections are strong in the US and Anglosphere systems, at least if you have the money and wherewithal. A bigger problem is that executives and board members are financially shielded, often through corporate-bought personal liability insurance. Maybe things would get better if there were laws mandating clawbacks, with independent agents[1] tasked with drafting the contracts and enforcing clawbacks, and perhaps somehow preventing executives from insuring themselves, such as with mandatory right of recourse clauses (i.e. insurer can always recover their payouts from the insured, making them more like guarantors). This aspect of corporate law is really complex though because it touches on so many subject areas. And stuff like this has been tried--it's how we ended up with corporate-bought personal insurance policies, a response to a brief period where executives and board members found themselves financially exposed during the early years of professional shareholder lawsuits. [1] Even though technically this is supposed to be the responsibility of board members. But that's an even thornier problem.
akira2501 7y ago
> even file criminal charges against individuals? Usually it would be recommended to FBI for legal review, and if they find that laws were broken, then referred to the DOJ for prosecution. > we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" If you committed a crime, whether violent or financial, then you should be prosecuted. It's disheartening to see government lawyers give away the candy store every time just so they can secure a "quick" negotiation and move on with their jobs. Unless people have _real_ disincentives to break the law.. guess what? They're just going to break the law and hide behind their money for as long as we let them. This needs to change or we're going to experience the 1930s again.

lvs 7y ago

I think you misunderstand what the FTC does. The FTC does not have the power to charge individuals under criminal indictments.

munk-a 7y ago
The FTC has the ability to recommend charges and often will name and shame involved parties - additionally the FTC could extend the liability for these fines to the backers of CA if they chose to and that'd honestly send a ridiculously strong message - investing in something this shady should really break out of the standard liability agreements of a corporation and extend to personal assets. If the investors behind CA were aware of the shady business CA was trying to do (and all signs point strongly to yes in this case) then they conspired. If they conspired they should be prosecuted accordingly and this seems like a good and easy charge to press.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Id' be interested in some examples of past recommendations from the FTC that lead to indictments or at least investigations.
- lvs 7y ago
  They could potentially refer, but they would at best be referring for further investigation since many of the investigative tools necessary to pursue individual criminal indictments are not available to them. The FTC is limited to administrative powers and can take civil actions -- that's it. As far as going after investors for fines, I've never heard of such an attempt by the FTC against backers of an LLC, and I suspect that would be tied up in courts and legally inviable. It's nice to fantasize about regulators making these kinds of smackdowns, but their real world powers are quite limited by statute and case law.

shakna 7y ago

> instead they're limited to just constraints on future actions Just as a small reminder: CA is officially shutting down. [0] They're also re-emerging as Emerdata. [1] (Same people, same office, different name and registration.) [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43983958 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43983958 [1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/02/cambridge_analytica_shutdown/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/02/cambridge_analytica...