4 ms·

> In addition to being close to the Sun-Times offices, the bar came with an unexpected perk—a business broker who informed Pam and Bill he would help them cheat

> In addition to being close to the Sun-Times offices, the bar came with an unexpected perk—a business broker who informed Pam and Bill he would help them cheat on their taxes and buy off officials. ... > [...] he was going to steer us through the process of getting licensed and getting inspected and getting our inspections approved—he would be contacting the building inspector and the fire inspector and whatever inspector we would have to deal with and we should leave an envelope with a certain amount of cash, and he told us what the cash amount should be for each inspector. ... > [...] And we looked at the entrapment laws because we knew people would say it was entrapment. > Pam: The rule we followed the whole time was not to say anything, or pressure anybody to do anything they weren’t normally inclined to do. I don't understand how they go from hiring a guy to bribe inspectors for them (or teach them to bribe inspectors), to saying they have a rule "not to say anything, or pressure anybody". If I understand correctly the reporters were the ones initiating the bribery, offering the envelopes of money (as opposed to the inspectors initiating by asking for the money). So I can see how the question of entrapment is complicated in this case.

jasonlotito 3y ago
> I don't understand how they go from hiring a guy to bribe inspectors for them (or teach them to bribe inspectors), to saying they have a rule "not to say anything, or pressure anybody". They didn't say they wanted to bribe people. Rather, someone assumed they were going to play along and told them to do these things. They just did what they were told and played along. They just included an envelope. Things that shouldn't pass were passed. They didn't say "Hey, here is the envelope of cash, that should pay for the mess back there." That's effectively how it's done. Basically, if an inspector came along and refused to take the money and/or refuse to pass them, they would have accepted the refusal to be passed and most likely fixed the issue to get passed. Or end the story. As for "hiring a guy," he came associated with the place, and effectively offered to do the work for them. They didn't seek him out. He approached them, and they just say "Ok" and played along.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Bribe-accepting officials don't tell you that you must pay them cash in an envelope. That's carelessly brazen. Or, if they do, it's only after extra weeks of nudging. They might take pity on someone completely naive... there's no need to be cruel to those who don't know the rules of the game. So after a month or two of being shut down, and the dumbass not taking hints, maybe they whisper something when there are no witnesses. Maybe after poking around and making sure that they're not some undercover cop or fed. But after years of this, systems develop organically to minimize the need. Others who aren't inspectors (a savvy real estate agent) but do know the rules step in. They let the rubes know what's up. And if someone accuses them, they've committed no bribes, they're just pointing out the existence of the bribery and providing free advice on how to navigate it (it's fair to assume some get kickbacks, but good luck figuring out those details). They ran into one of those guys early. They didn't set out to hire anyone to do it. He offered for free.

jasonlotito 3y ago

> I don't understand how they go from hiring a guy to bribe inspectors for them (or teach them to bribe inspectors), to saying they have a rule "not to say anything, or pressure anybody". They didn't say they wanted to bribe people. Rather, someone assumed they were going to play along and told them to do these things. They just did what they were told and played along. They just included an envelope. Things that shouldn't pass were passed. They didn't say "Hey, here is the envelope of cash, that should pay for the mess back there." That's effectively how it's done. Basically, if an inspector came along and refused to take the money and/or refuse to pass them, they would have accepted the refusal to be passed and most likely fixed the issue to get passed. Or end the story. As for "hiring a guy," he came associated with the place, and effectively offered to do the work for them. They didn't seek him out. He approached them, and they just say "Ok" and played along.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Bribe-accepting officials don't tell you that you must pay them cash in an envelope. That's carelessly brazen. Or, if they do, it's only after extra weeks of nudging. They might take pity on someone completely naive... there's no need to be cruel to those who don't know the rules of the game. So after a month or two of being shut down, and the dumbass not taking hints, maybe they whisper something when there are no witnesses. Maybe after poking around and making sure that they're not some undercover cop or fed. But after years of this, systems develop organically to minimize the need. Others who aren't inspectors (a savvy real estate agent) but do know the rules step in. They let the rubes know what's up. And if someone accuses them, they've committed no bribes, they're just pointing out the existence of the bribery and providing free advice on how to navigate it (it's fair to assume some get kickbacks, but good luck figuring out those details). They ran into one of those guys early. They didn't set out to hire anyone to do it. He offered for free.