3 ms·

The article focuses on the resolution of tax liability with CA, but it also mentions InfoSys heavily misclassifying immigrants, which seems to expose them to fe

by SilasX 7y ago

The article focuses on the resolution of tax liability with CA, but it also mentions InfoSys heavily misclassifying immigrants, which seems to expose them to federal prosecution as well -- isn't that going to have much worse consequences? Will CA's sanctuary policy have implications for the feds' ability to prosecute (i.e. does it extend to "no we won't pass on what they represented in their filings")? Also, $800k feels like not enough deter this kind of thing.

sct202 7y ago
$800k penalty seems like basically nothing.
- gamesbrainiac 7y ago
  My initial thoughts exactly.
- SilasX 7y ago
  It's definitely nothing compared to Infosys cash flows as a whole; I'm only on the fence because I'm not sure how large it is relative to the profits of this specific scheme.
pkaye 7y ago
They are not illegal immigrants so probably the CA sanctuary policy doesn't apply. Now the question is are the Fed pursuing any prosecution.
- toast0 7y ago
  So, if the B-1 visas are revoked while the holders are in the US, ICE would probably like to deport them as part of their Immigration Enforcement activities. The biggest portion (in my mind) of the law that I found [1] is: > 7284.6. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not: > (1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following: > [long list] I would say that the state was investing a company, not necessarily a person, and for tax enforcement purposes, not for immigration enforcement purposes. I also may not have the final law (or it may have been adjusted since). Also, people on B-1 visa shouldn't remain in the country for very long at a stretch (max 6 months), so it's likely there aren't a lot of people who could be detained for violations. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
alistairSH 7y ago
I doubt any sanctuary city/state policies would impact federal investigation (and prosecution) of visa fraud. When a state/city declared itself a sanctuary, it typically relates to turning over immigrants to ICE, usually after they've been apprehended for non-immigration reasons (speeding and other minor crimes). I haven't heard of those policies extending to broader immigration crime.
gamblor956 7y ago
The article notes they already settled with the feds.
TheBobinator 7y ago
All Fines are bribes; the entire concept of a fine in of itself is fundementally a corruption of the law. If you want to stay pro-business, sentancing the executive management to public service, or probation, or anti-corruption workshops like they do for those with DUI works fine for me. I'm all for a 3 strikes program. First strike, you pay for the workshop and pass or get probation. Second strike you're on probation and if you don't like it, go to jail. Third strike, you're a felon.

by SilasX 7y ago

sct202 7y ago

$800k penalty seems like basically nothing.

gamesbrainiac 7y ago
My initial thoughts exactly.
SilasX 7y ago
It's definitely nothing compared to Infosys cash flows as a whole; I'm only on the fence because I'm not sure how large it is relative to the profits of this specific scheme.

pkaye 7y ago

They are not illegal immigrants so probably the CA sanctuary policy doesn't apply. Now the question is are the Fed pursuing any prosecution.

toast0 7y ago
So, if the B-1 visas are revoked while the holders are in the US, ICE would probably like to deport them as part of their Immigration Enforcement activities. The biggest portion (in my mind) of the law that I found [1] is: > 7284.6. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not: > (1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following: > [long list] I would say that the state was investing a company, not necessarily a person, and for tax enforcement purposes, not for immigration enforcement purposes. I also may not have the final law (or it may have been adjusted since). Also, people on B-1 visa shouldn't remain in the country for very long at a stretch (max 6 months), so it's likely there aren't a lot of people who could be detained for violations. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

alistairSH 7y ago

I doubt any sanctuary city/state policies would impact federal investigation (and prosecution) of visa fraud. When a state/city declared itself a sanctuary, it typically relates to turning over immigrants to ICE, usually after they've been apprehended for non-immigration reasons (speeding and other minor crimes). I haven't heard of those policies extending to broader immigration crime.

gamblor956 7y ago

The article notes they already settled with the feds.

TheBobinator 7y ago

All Fines are bribes; the entire concept of a fine in of itself is fundementally a corruption of the law. If you want to stay pro-business, sentancing the executive management to public service, or probation, or anti-corruption workshops like they do for those with DUI works fine for me. I'm all for a 3 strikes program. First strike, you pay for the workshop and pass or get probation. Second strike you're on probation and if you don't like it, go to jail. Third strike, you're a felon.