4 ms·

You would think that if he were so invested in the whistleblower program he would do his due diligence to understand the fine print.

matthewdgreen 5y ago
The fine print seems to be that the bankruptcy process privileges investors, rather than requiring companies to pay fines (which pay for the whistleblower program.) I don't know if this is good or bad, but it's the important substance of the article -- not the silly detail about this particular person's finances.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  Well the crime the company committed was fraud against their investors... shouldn't the victims get their money back? Paying out the whistleblower before the victims would be like if someone stole your bike, then the cops arrest the guy and recover your bike because of a tip... and then the cops give your bike to the guy who called in the tip
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    It's all about the incentives. You have to decide what you want, a criminogenic environment or fairness.
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    wow, that would be like having a bounty program that paid whistleblowers 10% of value of the theft for encouragement and was catching enough perps to act as a deterrent and lowered the overall crime rate and got victims 90% of their losses back, kind of an ex post insurance pool... ...and then figuring you could get victims 100% of their losses back by taking that 10% from the whistleblowers and sending them to the back of the line, and then coming back a year later and seeing that... ...while victims were getting 100% of their losses back when these crimes were discovered, very few of these crimes were being discovered, and using your impeccable logic concluding that the crime rate must have gone down! who needs whistleblowers!?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > and got victims 90% of their losses back We do not have a justice system in which the victim pays for the cost of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing offenders. All of that is paid by the general public. That does not mean there are no bounties -- there are, but the bounties are never paid by subtracting out amounts due victims. Changing that, so that victims would not be entitled to full restitution in order to help finance law enforcement would require changing a lot of laws, not just adding a whistleblower law. It would also overturn a lot of precedent. It would be a big change that a large majority of the public would oppose.
      - fsckboy 5y ago
        > that a large majority of the public would oppose source?
  - dbuder 5y ago
    Against their investors or on their investors behalf? And either way, it is the investors who could (supposedly) bring an end to it.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Not having a whistleblower would be like if someone stole your bike, got away with it, then went on to have a long, successful career in stealing bikes. The crime has already been committed. The whistleblower is the reason you're getting anything back.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

matthewdgreen 5y ago

The fine print seems to be that the bankruptcy process privileges investors, rather than requiring companies to pay fines (which pay for the whistleblower program.) I don't know if this is good or bad, but it's the important substance of the article -- not the silly detail about this particular person's finances.

cortesoft 5y ago
Well the crime the company committed was fraud against their investors... shouldn't the victims get their money back? Paying out the whistleblower before the victims would be like if someone stole your bike, then the cops arrest the guy and recover your bike because of a tip... and then the cops give your bike to the guy who called in the tip
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  It's all about the incentives. You have to decide what you want, a criminogenic environment or fairness.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  wow, that would be like having a bounty program that paid whistleblowers 10% of value of the theft for encouragement and was catching enough perps to act as a deterrent and lowered the overall crime rate and got victims 90% of their losses back, kind of an ex post insurance pool... ...and then figuring you could get victims 100% of their losses back by taking that 10% from the whistleblowers and sending them to the back of the line, and then coming back a year later and seeing that... ...while victims were getting 100% of their losses back when these crimes were discovered, very few of these crimes were being discovered, and using your impeccable logic concluding that the crime rate must have gone down! who needs whistleblowers!?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > and got victims 90% of their losses back We do not have a justice system in which the victim pays for the cost of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing offenders. All of that is paid by the general public. That does not mean there are no bounties -- there are, but the bounties are never paid by subtracting out amounts due victims. Changing that, so that victims would not be entitled to full restitution in order to help finance law enforcement would require changing a lot of laws, not just adding a whistleblower law. It would also overturn a lot of precedent. It would be a big change that a large majority of the public would oppose.
    - fsckboy 5y ago
      > that a large majority of the public would oppose source?
- dbuder 5y ago
  Against their investors or on their investors behalf? And either way, it is the investors who could (supposedly) bring an end to it.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Not having a whistleblower would be like if someone stole your bike, got away with it, then went on to have a long, successful career in stealing bikes. The crime has already been committed. The whistleblower is the reason you're getting anything back.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]