10 ms·

I wonder... what's the actual crime here? I don't know how US law works. In my country there is no "bribe" in the private sector, it's probably still not allowe

by jakubp 5y ago

I wonder... what's the actual crime here? I don't know how US law works. In my country there is no "bribe" in the private sector, it's probably still not allowed in some cases (certainly publicly traded companies), but I'm assuming Netflix wasn't a public company during that time. Can someone explain? If a director is given freedom to make certain purchasing decisions on behalf of a company (private company at that point, I assume), why specifically is it a criminal offense in the US to be rewarded money for it? (I don't mean money laundering i.e. hiding source of income, I mean the actual "bribe") [Edit] I did just find out that my country also has "management bribery" as a criminal offense within the private sector.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lodovic 5y ago
Was wondering the same thing. The article mentions the suit is Netflix vs the exec, so this will at least be breach of contract.
- jeffwilcox 5y ago
  Their standard employee agreement must include a set of clauses relating to conflict of interest.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  There may indeed by a Netflix vs. the exec, but this article is United States vs. the exec. Fraud is a crime. Wire/mail fraud is a federal crime.
Hamuko 5y ago
The article says "wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering". So basically he used telecommunications/the Internet and the US postal system to defraud his employer, and then laundered his dirty money (I assume using the family trust mentioned in the article).
capableweb 5y ago
It might give you a better overview to go straight to the source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executive-convicted-receiving-bribes-and-kickbacks-companies-contracting https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... It outlines that Michael Kail was convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering, so it seems the "preference of products for payments" was just a small piece of the puzzle here.
- enkid 5y ago
  He was defrauding his own company by rigging the selection process. The kickbacks are explicitly stated as the core of the case on the DoJ site.
- 1_person 5y ago
  Frankly, being convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering might as well be an acquittal. The wire fraud and mail fraud statutes are written to be vague enough that basically existing is a violation, money laundering is existing with money. If they had real crimes they would have charged them, this is just some "because I don't like you" political bullshit.
  - enkid 5y ago
    Are you saying he didn't commit a crime or he shouldn't be held legally responsible for what he did? I don't see how your view is consistent with anything else.
    - 1_person 5y ago
      I don't really know enough about what happened to have an opinion on it, and neither do you, but the media's told you to hate him, so here we are I guess. Moving on, what I actually said, and what I actually meant, was that those laws are incredibly vague and have been used to convict more or less everything under the sun except actual wire or mail frauds. If a conviction involves only wire, mail, and money laundering charges then it is because the only guilt that could be proven was axiomatic. Pardon me for pausing a moment to ponder before picking up a stone and joining you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gambiting 5y ago
Yeah I don't think there's a crime here, not in a legal sense. I work at a large software company where doing this is prohibited by contract and you can be dismissed due to it, but I'm not aware of any legal problems outside of this.
- Mauricebranagh 5y ago
  The US and most countries have very strict anti bribery laws
  - hulitu 5y ago
    Yes , but when bribery takes the form of lobbying those laws are useless.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    For public sector, absolutely 1000%, very illegal. However, please point me to a law that says it's illegal to give a gift from one private company to another for any kind of advantage.
    - throw_m239339 5y ago
      > However, please point me to a law that says it's illegal to give a gift from one private company to another for any kind of advantage. Company B,Z or X didn't gift Netflix, they gifted a Netflix employee who then defrauded the company he worked for of its money, in exchange for these personal gifts and money. The "defrauding" part is his hierarchy not being aware of that arrangement. It's called fraud and it's illegal. It's so illegal it is a federal crime.
      - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        > It's called fraud Is it really just counted as fraud in the US? Here in the UK, bribery is a different offence from fraud.
- khuey 5y ago
praptak 5y ago
In most countries there are laws for dealing with breach of trust, which covers all kinds of damage that a person can do when hired to manage someone else's company. So my guess is that while bribes in private sector are not illegal per se, you can still go to jail for the decisions made as the result of taking the bribe.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  In california at least, private sector bribery is explicitly a felony. On the federal level you get charged for using mail or telecommunications to lie for financial gain or for hiding the source of the money.
sgt101 5y ago
I believe that as an employee of a company charged with setting up relationships to support the delivery of revenue you have a duty to fairly and openly select the offers that are in the best interest of your employers without considerations for yourself. If you accept considerations for your own interest - like payments or offers of subsequent employment and so on, then you are defrauding your employers. Since the payments mean that effectively there is a transfer of money from your employer to the contractor and then to you I believe that this is also a kind of theft. At the least, it's dishonest - unless your employer understood you were doing it - in which case it's a kind of hidden remuneration I guess.
- lars512 5y ago
  It would be tax evasion at minimum, unless you declared everything in your tax return.
- lstroud 5y ago
  I’m not sure he was a c-suite executive. So, likely no fiduciary responsibility.
colechristensen 5y ago
In the US legal system individual states and the federal governments both have enforceable laws. This case was federal and it boils down to “fraud” of a few types which comes down to lying for financial gain and “money laundering” which involves hiding the source of money. California though (but it doesn’t seem this was charged by the state) explicitly has a law criminalizing commercial bribery where if you take money secretly and privately to make a decision at your job, you have committed a felony.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
it looks like the crime is not so much that he accepted bribes but how he did it. For example if a company came and gave him §10000 in hand and he reported in on his taxes he would probably be alright but reading the article I can see he was found guilty of multiple cases of money laundering - like you indicated that is against the law not the 'bribe' per se, furthermore he got convicted of fraud - I think because as it says "To facilitate kickback payments, the evidence at trial showed that Kail created and controlled a limited liability corporation called Unix Mercenary, LLC," the DOJ said. "Established on February 7, 2012, Unix Mercenary had no employees and no business location. Kail was the sole signatory to its bank accounts." So basically the company he created was involved in fraudulent activities. There may be other forms of fraud involved here - for example if he said to Netflix I think we should use X because it is the best but he actually wants to use X because he is getting 10000 for it - I could envision a law being written in such a way that it could be interpreted as him defrauding Netflix of 10000 worth of value. on edit: I can also see in the article it says "When an inquiry from the Netflix CEO ensued, Kail falsely denied that he was formally working with Platfora. Kail resigned from his advisory position at Platfora the next week." so he explicitly stated he was not doing something while getting value for doing that thing - that would generally be considered fraudulent.
- enkid 5y ago
  You can't lie to your employer about receiving money from another company in exchange for preferential treatment. That's the definition of fraud. So, yes, receiving the bribes was absolutely illegal
  - conanbatt 5y ago
    But is that money laundering?
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      It is if you try to disguise the source of that bribery income as something else in order to declare it as income.
Mauricebranagh 5y ago
Actually in Anglo Saxon employment law its very "naughty" as lawyers put it :-)
rlpb 5y ago
> "When an inquiry from the Netflix CEO ensued, Kail falsely denied that he was formally working with Platfora. Kail resigned from his advisory position at Platfora the next week." Apparently he lied to the CEO for personal financial gain. That's fraud, isn't it?
meepmorp 5y ago
> I wonder... what's the actual crime here? I don't know how US law works. Fraud and money laundering - it clearly says so, in the second paragraph in the article: > Michael Kail, the ex-Netflix executive, was convicted by a federal jury of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.
- jakubp 5y ago
  My point was I didn't understand why making a decision that gives a manager an extra (hidden) benefit is a crime - i.e. it's not money laundering (money laundering is misrepresenting the source of money, right?, and "wire fraud" and "mail fraud" is too elusive to me - it's a name, not an explanation of the nature of the wrongdoing :) It's clearer now.

by jakubp 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lodovic 5y ago

Was wondering the same thing. The article mentions the suit is Netflix vs the exec, so this will at least be breach of contract.

jeffwilcox 5y ago
Their standard employee agreement must include a set of clauses relating to conflict of interest.
jeffbee 5y ago
There may indeed by a Netflix vs. the exec, but this article is United States vs. the exec. Fraud is a crime. Wire/mail fraud is a federal crime.

Hamuko 5y ago

The article says "wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering". So basically he used telecommunications/the Internet and the US postal system to defraud his employer, and then laundered his dirty money (I assume using the family trust mentioned in the article).

capableweb 5y ago

It might give you a better overview to go straight to the source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executive-convicted-receiving-bribes-and-kickbacks-companies-contracting https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/former-netflix-executiv... It outlines that Michael Kail was convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering, so it seems the "preference of products for payments" was just a small piece of the puzzle here.

enkid 5y ago
He was defrauding his own company by rigging the selection process. The kickbacks are explicitly stated as the core of the case on the DoJ site.
1_person 5y ago
Frankly, being convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering might as well be an acquittal. The wire fraud and mail fraud statutes are written to be vague enough that basically existing is a violation, money laundering is existing with money. If they had real crimes they would have charged them, this is just some "because I don't like you" political bullshit.
- enkid 5y ago
  Are you saying he didn't commit a crime or he shouldn't be held legally responsible for what he did? I don't see how your view is consistent with anything else.
  - 1_person 5y ago
    I don't really know enough about what happened to have an opinion on it, and neither do you, but the media's told you to hate him, so here we are I guess. Moving on, what I actually said, and what I actually meant, was that those laws are incredibly vague and have been used to convict more or less everything under the sun except actual wire or mail frauds. If a conviction involves only wire, mail, and money laundering charges then it is because the only guilt that could be proven was axiomatic. Pardon me for pausing a moment to ponder before picking up a stone and joining you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

gambiting 5y ago

Yeah I don't think there's a crime here, not in a legal sense. I work at a large software company where doing this is prohibited by contract and you can be dismissed due to it, but I'm not aware of any legal problems outside of this.

Mauricebranagh 5y ago
The US and most countries have very strict anti bribery laws
- hulitu 5y ago
  Yes , but when bribery takes the form of lobbying those laws are useless.
- gambiting 5y ago
  For public sector, absolutely 1000%, very illegal. However, please point me to a law that says it's illegal to give a gift from one private company to another for any kind of advantage.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > However, please point me to a law that says it's illegal to give a gift from one private company to another for any kind of advantage. Company B,Z or X didn't gift Netflix, they gifted a Netflix employee who then defrauded the company he worked for of its money, in exchange for these personal gifts and money. The "defrauding" part is his hierarchy not being aware of that arrangement. It's called fraud and it's illegal. It's so illegal it is a federal crime.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > It's called fraud Is it really just counted as fraud in the US? Here in the UK, bribery is a different offence from fraud.
khuey 5y ago

praptak 5y ago

In most countries there are laws for dealing with breach of trust, which covers all kinds of damage that a person can do when hired to manage someone else's company. So my guess is that while bribes in private sector are not illegal per se, you can still go to jail for the decisions made as the result of taking the bribe.

colechristensen 5y ago
In california at least, private sector bribery is explicitly a felony. On the federal level you get charged for using mail or telecommunications to lie for financial gain or for hiding the source of the money.

sgt101 5y ago

I believe that as an employee of a company charged with setting up relationships to support the delivery of revenue you have a duty to fairly and openly select the offers that are in the best interest of your employers without considerations for yourself. If you accept considerations for your own interest - like payments or offers of subsequent employment and so on, then you are defrauding your employers. Since the payments mean that effectively there is a transfer of money from your employer to the contractor and then to you I believe that this is also a kind of theft. At the least, it's dishonest - unless your employer understood you were doing it - in which case it's a kind of hidden remuneration I guess.

lars512 5y ago
It would be tax evasion at minimum, unless you declared everything in your tax return.
lstroud 5y ago
I’m not sure he was a c-suite executive. So, likely no fiduciary responsibility.

colechristensen 5y ago

In the US legal system individual states and the federal governments both have enforceable laws. This case was federal and it boils down to “fraud” of a few types which comes down to lying for financial gain and “money laundering” which involves hiding the source of money. California though (but it doesn’t seem this was charged by the state) explicitly has a law criminalizing commercial bribery where if you take money secretly and privately to make a decision at your job, you have committed a felony.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

it looks like the crime is not so much that he accepted bribes but how he did it. For example if a company came and gave him §10000 in hand and he reported in on his taxes he would probably be alright but reading the article I can see he was found guilty of multiple cases of money laundering - like you indicated that is against the law not the 'bribe' per se, furthermore he got convicted of fraud - I think because as it says "To facilitate kickback payments, the evidence at trial showed that Kail created and controlled a limited liability corporation called Unix Mercenary, LLC," the DOJ said. "Established on February 7, 2012, Unix Mercenary had no employees and no business location. Kail was the sole signatory to its bank accounts." So basically the company he created was involved in fraudulent activities. There may be other forms of fraud involved here - for example if he said to Netflix I think we should use X because it is the best but he actually wants to use X because he is getting 10000 for it - I could envision a law being written in such a way that it could be interpreted as him defrauding Netflix of 10000 worth of value. on edit: I can also see in the article it says "When an inquiry from the Netflix CEO ensued, Kail falsely denied that he was formally working with Platfora. Kail resigned from his advisory position at Platfora the next week." so he explicitly stated he was not doing something while getting value for doing that thing - that would generally be considered fraudulent.

enkid 5y ago
You can't lie to your employer about receiving money from another company in exchange for preferential treatment. That's the definition of fraud. So, yes, receiving the bribes was absolutely illegal
- conanbatt 5y ago
  But is that money laundering?
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    It is if you try to disguise the source of that bribery income as something else in order to declare it as income.

Mauricebranagh 5y ago

Actually in Anglo Saxon employment law its very "naughty" as lawyers put it :-)

rlpb 5y ago

> "When an inquiry from the Netflix CEO ensued, Kail falsely denied that he was formally working with Platfora. Kail resigned from his advisory position at Platfora the next week." Apparently he lied to the CEO for personal financial gain. That's fraud, isn't it?

meepmorp 5y ago

> I wonder... what's the actual crime here? I don't know how US law works. Fraud and money laundering - it clearly says so, in the second paragraph in the article: > Michael Kail, the ex-Netflix executive, was convicted by a federal jury of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.

jakubp 5y ago
My point was I didn't understand why making a decision that gives a manager an extra (hidden) benefit is a crime - i.e. it's not money laundering (money laundering is misrepresenting the source of money, right?, and "wire fraud" and "mail fraud" is too elusive to me - it's a name, not an explanation of the nature of the wrongdoing :) It's clearer now.