3 ms·

As a non-US'er, there are several things I don't understand here: 1. Why was the federal government suing Kail, rather than the company? i.e. on what basis do

As a non-US'er, there are several things I don't understand here: 1. Why was the federal government suing Kail, rather than the company? i.e. on what basis do his actions constitute a criminal offense, when conducted within a single organization (the company)? 2. I remember hearing the terms "mail fraud" and "wire fraud" a lot, but what do Kail's actions have to do with mailing or wiring anything? 3. From the description, it seems like Kail's actions were pretty transparent. Wasn't he called out immediately on this stuff?

PeterisP 6y ago
1. Netflix itself did nothing wrong - it's lawful for a company to use shitty expensive useless products. On the other hand, if a company officer takes bribes to act against the interests of their employer, they're breaching their duty of care towards the employer and defrauding them, and that is a felony. I'm not certain about the guilt of the bribing company, that might depend on the exact details and where it happens/which law applies. 2. "Standard" in-person fraud is prosecuted by the states, but fraud over mail or wires is a federal crime, so if any long-distance communications were involved then the federal justice system can (also) get involved.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > breachingtheir duty of care towards the employer and defrauding them That's the part that sounds a bit strange to me. I mean, breach of duty is one thing, and fraud is a second thing. But I guess that's how fraud is defined in US criminal law. > 2. "Standard" in-person fraud is prosecuted by the states, but fraud over mail or wires is a federal crime, so if any long-distance communications were involved then the federal justice system can (also) get involved. Well, the relations between a company and its officer are in-person, aren't they? Or is it the case that if I defraud you and during that time call your phone once, I can be prosecuted for "wire fraud"?
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    The definition is "the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme". Email and phone qualifies, and it does not need to play a crucial role in the scheme to defraud, it only needs to be made in order to advance the scheme somehow; a single email exchange about the kickbacks with a vendor sales representative in another state might be sufficient push it from "normal" fraud to wire fraud.

PeterisP 6y ago

1. Netflix itself did nothing wrong - it's lawful for a company to use shitty expensive useless products. On the other hand, if a company officer takes bribes to act against the interests of their employer, they're breaching their duty of care towards the employer and defrauding them, and that is a felony. I'm not certain about the guilt of the bribing company, that might depend on the exact details and where it happens/which law applies. 2. "Standard" in-person fraud is prosecuted by the states, but fraud over mail or wires is a federal crime, so if any long-distance communications were involved then the federal justice system can (also) get involved.

einpoklum 6y ago
> breachingtheir duty of care towards the employer and defrauding them That's the part that sounds a bit strange to me. I mean, breach of duty is one thing, and fraud is a second thing. But I guess that's how fraud is defined in US criminal law. > 2. "Standard" in-person fraud is prosecuted by the states, but fraud over mail or wires is a federal crime, so if any long-distance communications were involved then the federal justice system can (also) get involved. Well, the relations between a company and its officer are in-person, aren't they? Or is it the case that if I defraud you and during that time call your phone once, I can be prosecuted for "wire fraud"?
- PeterisP 6y ago
  The definition is "the use of an interstate wire communication to further the scheme". Email and phone qualifies, and it does not need to play a crucial role in the scheme to defraud, it only needs to be made in order to advance the scheme somehow; a single email exchange about the kickbacks with a vendor sales representative in another state might be sufficient push it from "normal" fraud to wire fraud.