4 ms·

> The kicker is that some poor bastard was indicted for paying the "consulting" fee! Can you point me to where I can read more about that? I'm assuming the in

> The kicker is that some poor bastard was indicted for paying the "consulting" fee! Can you point me to where I can read more about that? I'm assuming the indicted person knew exactly what he was doing, but it's still terrible to be stuck in a business situation where the only way to get your job done is to go along with something like that.

A_D_E_P_T 4y ago
It's in the article I linked to: > "Also the owner of Cargo On Demand was himself indicted, for paying the bribes, which seems a bit harsh. He was dealing with a company, and all the senior executives he dealt with told him that he had to pay these fees! He thought they were a resort fee!" It's also in the indictment. The defendant from Cargo On Demand is Patrick Lau, referred to as "Lau" throughout. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the indictment to suggest that he was in on the scheme. Also, he had sued Polar in a Civil case a while back, which is probably how all of this had come to light in the first place! It seems bizarre that the Feds charged him.
- cperciva 4y ago
  He's indicted, not convicted. "I'm a sucker and didn't realize what was going on" is absolutely a possible defense; I would assume that the DOJ will lead evidence to show that he knew what was going on and willingly participated, but that's why there's a trial.
  - vharuck 4y ago
    Another possibility is the DOJ not intending up take that person to trial, but instead offering to reduce or drop the charges in exchange for testimony.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
babyshake 4y ago
IANAL and not sure of the exact name for this concept, but I believe when there's a practice that is very standardized it can be used as a legal defense that you're just doing what everyone else does.
- fastball 4y ago
  It's just called "customary practice".
bsder 4y ago
Yeah, this surprises me a bit. If a company tells me "Pay $X to X company and $Y to Y company to get your cargo delivered", I'm going to do X and Y unless they actually look illegal. Submitting invoices to two different companies wouldn't ring any obvious bells. If you have a company that calls making bids/examining cargo/whatever a "consulting fee", I'll roll my eyes, file the paperwork and pay the invoice. I'm assuming the DOJ has emails or somesuch that actually acknowledge the scheme. However, that's probably going to be held for court.

A_D_E_P_T 4y ago

It's in the article I linked to: > "Also the owner of Cargo On Demand was himself indicted, for paying the bribes, which seems a bit harsh. He was dealing with a company, and all the senior executives he dealt with told him that he had to pay these fees! He thought they were a resort fee!" It's also in the indictment. The defendant from Cargo On Demand is Patrick Lau, referred to as "Lau" throughout. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the indictment to suggest that he was in on the scheme. Also, he had sued Polar in a Civil case a while back, which is probably how all of this had come to light in the first place! It seems bizarre that the Feds charged him.

cperciva 4y ago
He's indicted, not convicted. "I'm a sucker and didn't realize what was going on" is absolutely a possible defense; I would assume that the DOJ will lead evidence to show that he knew what was going on and willingly participated, but that's why there's a trial.
- vharuck 4y ago
  Another possibility is the DOJ not intending up take that person to trial, but instead offering to reduce or drop the charges in exchange for testimony.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

babyshake 4y ago

IANAL and not sure of the exact name for this concept, but I believe when there's a practice that is very standardized it can be used as a legal defense that you're just doing what everyone else does.

fastball 4y ago
It's just called "customary practice".

bsder 4y ago

Yeah, this surprises me a bit. If a company tells me "Pay $X to X company and $Y to Y company to get your cargo delivered", I'm going to do X and Y unless they actually look illegal. Submitting invoices to two different companies wouldn't ring any obvious bells. If you have a company that calls making bids/examining cargo/whatever a "consulting fee", I'll roll my eyes, file the paperwork and pay the invoice. I'm assuming the DOJ has emails or somesuch that actually acknowledge the scheme. However, that's probably going to be held for court.