5 ms·

Some of the vendors mentioned: - VistaraIT, LLC - Platfora, Inc. - Sumo Logic, Inc - ElasticBox, Inc - Numerify, Inc. - Docurated, Inc - Maginatics, Inc.

Some of the vendors mentioned: - VistaraIT, LLC - Platfora, Inc. - Sumo Logic, Inc - ElasticBox, Inc - Numerify, Inc. - Docurated, Inc - Maginatics, Inc. Is what they did illegal too? Presumably with zero chance of being charged. I haven't fully groked the limits of 'fraud' and 'money laundering' here in the US. These typically feel like they should be civil breach of fiduciary duty type cases.

shadowgovt 5y ago
IANAL, but in general: yes. Someone should be on the hook for paying bribes as well as for receiving them. At least, that's what every training on corporate bribery I've ever seen asserts.
- 8ytecoder 5y ago
  Not just should, they usually are. But I would also assume prosecutors use discretion to decide whether to charge them or not based on whether they do it as a pattern, whether they’re in their jurisdiction and whether they were coerced. I read this to mean one or multiple of it didn’t hold.
nightpool 5y ago
From TFA: Evidence at trial showed that several more companies paid Kail. Neither Netenrich, Vistara, nor any of the other companies were charged with criminal conduct. Only Kail was charged with devising the criminal scheme that defrauded Netflix. Since Kail was charged for wire fraud and mail fraud (deceiving Netflix about his personal compensation and conflicts of interest), it seems possible that the companies could be charged with "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" for colluding with him? It's hard for me to say exactly how easy this would be to prove—I think it's pretty clear to say that most companies / people should know that paying someone on the side for inside information on competitors or paying the VP a % of all contracts is an act to defraud Netflix. So the "meeting of the minds" to commit fraud is there, and the actual fraud is there (because one of the participants in the conspiracy committed it). But obviously this stuff is complicated and i'm not a lawyer. Also, the companies themselves would probably be pretty hard to charge, rather than the individual sales reps who signed off on the payments.
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  > paying someone on the side for inside information on competitors That seems like the proper litmus test for bribery by vendors, as distinct from "shakedown" / "pay to play" i.e. extortion from vendors. Wonder if really shrewd extortionists try to make victims complicit, by sending them inside info never asked for?
leagueoflegends 5y ago
VistaraIT, LLC renamed itself to OpsRamp to distance themselves from this debacle

shadowgovt 5y ago

IANAL, but in general: yes. Someone should be on the hook for paying bribes as well as for receiving them. At least, that's what every training on corporate bribery I've ever seen asserts.

8ytecoder 5y ago
Not just should, they usually are. But I would also assume prosecutors use discretion to decide whether to charge them or not based on whether they do it as a pattern, whether they’re in their jurisdiction and whether they were coerced. I read this to mean one or multiple of it didn’t hold.

nightpool 5y ago

From TFA: Evidence at trial showed that several more companies paid Kail. Neither Netenrich, Vistara, nor any of the other companies were charged with criminal conduct. Only Kail was charged with devising the criminal scheme that defrauded Netflix. Since Kail was charged for wire fraud and mail fraud (deceiving Netflix about his personal compensation and conflicts of interest), it seems possible that the companies could be charged with "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" for colluding with him? It's hard for me to say exactly how easy this would be to prove—I think it's pretty clear to say that most companies / people should know that paying someone on the side for inside information on competitors or paying the VP a % of all contracts is an act to defraud Netflix. So the "meeting of the minds" to commit fraud is there, and the actual fraud is there (because one of the participants in the conspiracy committed it). But obviously this stuff is complicated and i'm not a lawyer. Also, the companies themselves would probably be pretty hard to charge, rather than the individual sales reps who signed off on the payments.

everybodyknows 5y ago
> paying someone on the side for inside information on competitors That seems like the proper litmus test for bribery by vendors, as distinct from "shakedown" / "pay to play" i.e. extortion from vendors. Wonder if really shrewd extortionists try to make victims complicit, by sending them inside info never asked for?

leagueoflegends 5y ago

VistaraIT, LLC renamed itself to OpsRamp to distance themselves from this debacle