5 ms·

What a weird story. I have limited, tangential experience with getting the FBI involved with crimes of an employee. In our case, they were not in a rush to make

What a weird story. I have limited, tangential experience with getting the FBI involved with crimes of an employee. In our case, they were not in a rush to make any moves against the person until they had an airtight case with indisputable evidence. Honestly felt strange given how obvious the crime was during the investigation. Although in this case the seized funds were apparently returned. I have a feeling a lot of crucial details have been left out of this piece (EDIT: See links below to the investigation details. There are multiple parties involved and some of they were keenly aware that they were breaking laws that were "FBI-type stuff"). The devil’s advocate take on this outcome would be that the person cooperated with the FBI to provide evidence and/or testify against bigger fish in the case in exchange for being let off the hook. If this was the case, we’d probably see some headlines about an Amazon-related criminal charges in the coming months or years. Although in our case the released documents were full of “Company 1” and “Individual 2” anonymity, so someone (usually a journalist) would have to figure out the connection. Or maybe this really was some big misunderstanding with disastrous consequences to the family. Impossible to know from an article from this perspective. EDIT: There's a more in-depth review of the case here: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/former-aws-real-estate-managers-accused-taking-millions-kickbacks-challenge-amazons-motives-amid-fbi-investigation/ https://www.geekwire.com/2021/former-aws-real-estate-manager... From the summary, it does appear that multiple people are involved in the case and the person in this article (Nelson) doesn't look like the key player in the alleged frauds, though he would have played a significant role in facilitating the accusations. There's definitely some shady business going on, but this guy could have been more of a pawn than active player. One of the text messages from transcripts is notable (Note "Nelson" is the accused person in the Medium article): > “Flip me a couple buildings … and let me really line your pockets like we were discussing! ” Ramstetter wrote in a Dec. 17, 2018 message to Nelson, according to a copy of the exchange Amazon filed with the court. The transcript in that article is also enlightening, because it's literally a conversation between two of the partners who acknowledge that what they're doing is "federal, FBI-type stuff" and express concern over it. If you ever get a message like that from someone proposing to "line your pockets" in exchange for facilitating deals with your employer, maybe don't work with that person any more.

Workaccount2 5y ago
IIRC the FBI has something crazy like a 98% conviction rate. I'd guess that they take pride in the figure, and go to great lengths to keep it that high.
- voxic11 5y ago
  This is because the rate is calculated by excluding charges that were dropped by prosecutors, they only count dismissals and not guilty verdicts as losses.
  - kingcharles 5y ago
    Yes, you often see things like 99% conviction rate thrown around. 90% of cases end in plea deals anyway as most people aren't willing to use their right to trial because the time you get if you lose is often 10X what you can take on a plea deal. A vast majority of those found totally innocent through DNA evidence pled guilty to murder or rape even though they were factually innocent.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>I have limited, tangential experience with getting the FBI involved with crimes of an employee. In our case, they were not in a rush to make any moves against the person until they had an airtight case with indisputable evidence. Honestly felt strange given how obvious the crime was during the investigation. Sometimes you get the A team. Sometimes you get the geniuses that loaned APCs to the ATF. So long as the incompetence of the second rate people continues to not effect the careers of the first rate people nothing will change.
everforward 5y ago
> The devil’s advocate take on this outcome would be that the person cooperated with the FBI to provide evidence and/or testify against bigger fish in the case in exchange for being let off the hook. If this was the case, we’d probably see some headlines about an Amazon-related criminal charges in the coming months or years. Although in our case the released documents were full of “Company 1” and “Individual 2” anonymity, so someone (usually a journalist) would have to figure out the connection. I find even that devil's take to be problematic, because that sounds a lot like coerced testimony. It calls into question both the morality of doing so, and the authenticity of any testimony produced. It almost begs for comparisons to the mafia. There's not a huge gap between "testify against this person or we'll seize your home and business" and "don't testify against this person or we'll burn your home and business down". Other than that the government makes the rules, and they've decided it's okay when they do it.

Workaccount2 5y ago

IIRC the FBI has something crazy like a 98% conviction rate. I'd guess that they take pride in the figure, and go to great lengths to keep it that high.

voxic11 5y ago
This is because the rate is calculated by excluding charges that were dropped by prosecutors, they only count dismissals and not guilty verdicts as losses.
- kingcharles 5y ago
  Yes, you often see things like 99% conviction rate thrown around. 90% of cases end in plea deals anyway as most people aren't willing to use their right to trial because the time you get if you lose is often 10X what you can take on a plea deal. A vast majority of those found totally innocent through DNA evidence pled guilty to murder or rape even though they were factually innocent.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>I have limited, tangential experience with getting the FBI involved with crimes of an employee. In our case, they were not in a rush to make any moves against the person until they had an airtight case with indisputable evidence. Honestly felt strange given how obvious the crime was during the investigation. Sometimes you get the A team. Sometimes you get the geniuses that loaned APCs to the ATF. So long as the incompetence of the second rate people continues to not effect the careers of the first rate people nothing will change.

everforward 5y ago

> The devil’s advocate take on this outcome would be that the person cooperated with the FBI to provide evidence and/or testify against bigger fish in the case in exchange for being let off the hook. If this was the case, we’d probably see some headlines about an Amazon-related criminal charges in the coming months or years. Although in our case the released documents were full of “Company 1” and “Individual 2” anonymity, so someone (usually a journalist) would have to figure out the connection. I find even that devil's take to be problematic, because that sounds a lot like coerced testimony. It calls into question both the morality of doing so, and the authenticity of any testimony produced. It almost begs for comparisons to the mafia. There's not a huge gap between "testify against this person or we'll seize your home and business" and "don't testify against this person or we'll burn your home and business down". Other than that the government makes the rules, and they've decided it's okay when they do it.