3 ms·
On the one hand I can look at what he did and say that his intent was good and he protected those women and protected his company. However, Mr. Sullivan is clea
by steventhedev 6y ago
On the one hand I can look at what he did and say that his intent was good and he protected those women and protected his company. However, Mr. Sullivan is clearly taking the law into his own hands (even if that law is in another country).
If you look at this as a business deciding that they want to move forward a business deal elsewhere in the world, they would run afoul of the FCPA if they decided to bribe someone to further that business deal. But it seems that hiring PMCs to intimidate and threaten people is permitted. Perhaps the time has come for legislation to cover this particular practice.
- jstarfish 6y ago> However, Mr. Sullivan is clearly taking the law into his own hands (even if that law is in another country) FTA: "Romanian authorities refused to address the problem." Law is a social construct. If the law does not or will not address material interpersonal harm, taking matters into your own hands is less being a vigilante than it is creative problem-solving.
- steventhedev 6y agoThat's the type of behavior I would applaud. If a country is not handling law enforcement to your satisfaction, then simply don't do business there. My issue is with an American company literally furthering their business interests by hiring foreign actors to intimidate and threaten. The relevant quote from the article: "Mr. Sullivan’s team hired Nigerian contractors to confront him."