If they're hiring as a consultant the procurement officer at Netflix that decides to grant them the contract (and Netflix doesn't know about/approve this arrang

If they're hiring as a consultant the procurement officer at Netflix that decides to grant them the contract (and Netflix doesn't know about/approve this arrangement), that seems _very_ transparently to be a kickback to me. > it's hard to prove that what they did was illegal. Sure, it's a lot of work. That's why we spend money on prosecutors. But they literally _just_ proved that in a way that convinced 12 people "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's certainly not impossible. It just seems weird to be asking: "is the described scheme illegal?" in an article describing a conviction for the described behavior, unless you're questioning the validity of the judicial process in this case (which itself is a fine thing to do)