5 ms·

The reason this happens is that the bar for proving criminal intent on the part of a corporation- which would lead to jail for executives and could lead to diss

The reason this happens is that the bar for proving criminal intent on the part of a corporation- which would lead to jail for executives and could lead to dissolution of the corp- is very very high. Getting the evidence related to "mindset" and linking it to action and doing so in a way that sufficiently resists various defense strategies is almost impossible, and extremely expensive and time consuming to litigate. The result is a Nash equilibrium where companies, in a world where prosecutors had infinite time and resources, could be convicted of criminal acts, instead make a deal with prosecutors- whose investigations cost companies money to support and whose work is often public which can damage reputation. The size of the deal and other aspects of behavior/policy change will all be negotiated. A company can never "admit wrongdoing" as doing so would have so many downsteam impacts as to make it impossible to stay in business. For instance, a company that "admitted wrongdoing" would be in violation of any terms of financing and of many employment contracts.

jazzyjackson 5y ago
So what I’m hearing is, governments world prefer criminal enterprises stay in business so long as they get a cut of profits via settlements
- VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
  I think it's more just that the government doesn't want to blow 100 mil trying to litigate a case they have almost no chance of winning in some reasonable amount of time. Government lawyers are almost always out-gunned in cases like this.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    I agree that it’s pragmatic, it just doesn’t seem especially Just.
- jonahbenton 5y ago
  Non-snarky response to snarky comment: There is corruption everywhere, of course. The sort of transaction you talk about is common but also inefficient. Many jurisdiction governments just take direct equity stakes in successful or well positioned "commercial" endeavors, often after they become successful, in addition to collecting supra-level "taxes" of various kinds. That's not what's happening here, referring to Tish James' work against Tether as NY AG. My personal view, having both engaged with her office asking for help on one project and responding to queries from her office on another (neither related to crypto)- she's probably the best case/ideal state attorney general. Her heart and motivations are in the right place- working for the public interest- she's very politically savvy, and she's a very good chess player. She has some resources- probably has 1000 lawyers working for her, which in law firm terms would be huge. But these are public servants with public servant salaries and budgets without much room for all of the support team and expertise infrastructure that back law firms themselves. The number of matters they are dealing with is probably in the 5-6 figures- dozens to hundreds per lawyer- and the breadth of expertise required spans the entirely of the legal system. Housing, education, finance, commerce, local to global- you name it. In every case they have to understand the leverage they have, and use it carefully and deftly. This is what was done with tether. A relatively small settlement, but arrived at relatively quickly- has sent an extremely powerful signal. It is like striking a very precise blow with an extremely sharp axe, carving off a key part of the defensive bark on what was likely a wholly corrupt- but until then impenetrable- tree. Watch as over time more of the bark falls, more documents leak, more complaints arise.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    I appreciate your informed perspective, indeed I’m just bitter that banks got away with laundering drug money among other crimes. Sometimes it can seem like governments and financial institutions are on the same team ;)
- csomar 5y ago
  > criminal enterprises Define criminal enterprises? Because smoking can be considered one of them (it's harmful, addictive and heavily taxed). Only recently western governments started to crack on smoking (probably because they foot the bill for healthcare now?) but booze and tobacco where the way to tax people before.
tannhauser23 5y ago
Want to offer a clarification to what you said here. Government doesn't have to prove that the corporation acted with criminal intent - that's impossible since corporations don't have minds. To hold a corporation criminally liable, government must prove that an employee/agent of the company violated the law while acting within the scope of the employment. So, if you can prove that a Tether executive committed bank fraud, it's rather trivial to hold Tether the corporation responsible as well. The difficulty is proving that the individual acted with criminal intent. This is indeed a laborious, expensive process that involves trawling through millions of documents and IM messages. The targets of the investigation will often be able to afford the best defense lawyers. Which is why government will often settle a case rather than take it to trial.
- jonahbenton 5y ago
  Thanks, appreciate the clarification. Am not a lawyer so the aspects of a person that a corporation can be vs cannot be is fuzzy to me lol.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
anonymousab 5y ago
> A company can never "admit wrongdoing" as doing so would have so many downsteam impacts as to make it impossible to stay in business. If anything that sounds like making it a requirement to admit wrongdoing should be step 1.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

So what I’m hearing is, governments world prefer criminal enterprises stay in business so long as they get a cut of profits via settlements

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
I think it's more just that the government doesn't want to blow 100 mil trying to litigate a case they have almost no chance of winning in some reasonable amount of time. Government lawyers are almost always out-gunned in cases like this.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I agree that it’s pragmatic, it just doesn’t seem especially Just.
jonahbenton 5y ago
Non-snarky response to snarky comment: There is corruption everywhere, of course. The sort of transaction you talk about is common but also inefficient. Many jurisdiction governments just take direct equity stakes in successful or well positioned "commercial" endeavors, often after they become successful, in addition to collecting supra-level "taxes" of various kinds. That's not what's happening here, referring to Tish James' work against Tether as NY AG. My personal view, having both engaged with her office asking for help on one project and responding to queries from her office on another (neither related to crypto)- she's probably the best case/ideal state attorney general. Her heart and motivations are in the right place- working for the public interest- she's very politically savvy, and she's a very good chess player. She has some resources- probably has 1000 lawyers working for her, which in law firm terms would be huge. But these are public servants with public servant salaries and budgets without much room for all of the support team and expertise infrastructure that back law firms themselves. The number of matters they are dealing with is probably in the 5-6 figures- dozens to hundreds per lawyer- and the breadth of expertise required spans the entirely of the legal system. Housing, education, finance, commerce, local to global- you name it. In every case they have to understand the leverage they have, and use it carefully and deftly. This is what was done with tether. A relatively small settlement, but arrived at relatively quickly- has sent an extremely powerful signal. It is like striking a very precise blow with an extremely sharp axe, carving off a key part of the defensive bark on what was likely a wholly corrupt- but until then impenetrable- tree. Watch as over time more of the bark falls, more documents leak, more complaints arise.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I appreciate your informed perspective, indeed I’m just bitter that banks got away with laundering drug money among other crimes. Sometimes it can seem like governments and financial institutions are on the same team ;)
csomar 5y ago
> criminal enterprises Define criminal enterprises? Because smoking can be considered one of them (it's harmful, addictive and heavily taxed). Only recently western governments started to crack on smoking (probably because they foot the bill for healthcare now?) but booze and tobacco where the way to tax people before.

tannhauser23 5y ago

Want to offer a clarification to what you said here. Government doesn't have to prove that the corporation acted with criminal intent - that's impossible since corporations don't have minds. To hold a corporation criminally liable, government must prove that an employee/agent of the company violated the law while acting within the scope of the employment. So, if you can prove that a Tether executive committed bank fraud, it's rather trivial to hold Tether the corporation responsible as well. The difficulty is proving that the individual acted with criminal intent. This is indeed a laborious, expensive process that involves trawling through millions of documents and IM messages. The targets of the investigation will often be able to afford the best defense lawyers. Which is why government will often settle a case rather than take it to trial.

jonahbenton 5y ago
Thanks, appreciate the clarification. Am not a lawyer so the aspects of a person that a corporation can be vs cannot be is fuzzy to me lol.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

anonymousab 5y ago

> A company can never "admit wrongdoing" as doing so would have so many downsteam impacts as to make it impossible to stay in business. If anything that sounds like making it a requirement to admit wrongdoing should be step 1.