Yes, your description is clear and I can see why it's illegal and immoral, but the article is very vague on what's illegal or wrong about it. The key distincti

Yes, your description is clear and I can see why it's illegal and immoral, but the article is very vague on what's illegal or wrong about it. The key distinction that you outline is that the CIO did something behind the company's back that the company would almost certainly not have approved of. The CIO defrauded their own company by taking kickbacks in exchange for purchasing agreements; most people can see that as being wrong. As I'm reading this article with no familiarity or background knowledge, I did not presume that this exec, Kail, was doing something that Netflix would not have approved of and using his position for his own benefit and to defraud Netflix. If Netflix had been okay with Kail becoming a consultant or partner of the startups that Netflix entered into an arrangement with, then there would be no issue. Anyways, this article is written as if the reader already knows what happened and what's going on, which is fine but it shouldn't be titled "Why a former Netflix exec is facing ..." It should have instead been titled "Former head of IT Operations who defrauded Netflix will face 7 years in jail."