3 ms·

They already pleaded guilty; the link was changed to an outdated article. (See comment below by dang.) The extortion is this: 1. They were responsible, in par

They already pleaded guilty; the link was changed to an outdated article. (See comment below by dang.) The extortion is this: 1. They were responsible, in part, for suing Company 1, presumably in the high-profile Monsanto lawsuits. 2. They offered Company 1 a deal: if Company 1 bribed them for $200M, they would deliberately throw the case. 3. Company 1 reported that misconduct to the DoJ. 4. Assuming Company 1 is Monsanto, the original lawsuits were successful; one case in particular awarded two plaintiffs $1B each. The extortion here is that the lawyers were offering to throw the case and cost Company 1 only $200M instead of (presumably) $2B+, plus legal fees.

adrr 6y ago
Interesting, the real crime is that they weren’t acting in the best faith for their clients. Still doesn’t make sense as an extortion case unless soliciting bribes falls under extortion.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The federal extortion statute, most specifically 18 USC 875(d), seems quite applicable here: “(d)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Bribery, on the other hand, under federal law requires that the person being bribed is a public official, outside of special provisions relating to sporting contests and port security (separate provisions, not common to those two circumstances.) Well, and one other inverted scenario involving Members of Congress, etc., bribing private entities by using official acts to sway hiring decisions on partisan political grounds. But nothing that seems applicable to the kind of thing going on here.

adrr 6y ago

Interesting, the real crime is that they weren’t acting in the best faith for their clients. Still doesn’t make sense as an extortion case unless soliciting bribes falls under extortion.

dragonwriter 6y ago
The federal extortion statute, most specifically 18 USC 875(d), seems quite applicable here: “(d)Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Bribery, on the other hand, under federal law requires that the person being bribed is a public official, outside of special provisions relating to sporting contests and port security (separate provisions, not common to those two circumstances.) Well, and one other inverted scenario involving Members of Congress, etc., bribing private entities by using official acts to sway hiring decisions on partisan political grounds. But nothing that seems applicable to the kind of thing going on here.