5 ms·

5 years in jail seems a bit of an overreaction.

_jal 3y ago
He aimed too low.
janosdebugs 3y ago
I guess you missed this part: > Prosecutors showed that each of those shell companies involved the production of notarized affidavits in the names of people who didn’t exist.
- goalonetwo 3y ago
  No I didn't. I'm wondering how putting someone that is arguably a smart entrepreneur behind jail for 5 year is going to better our society. We need to think about the bigger picture and how this fits into rehabilitation.
  - HomeDeLaPot 3y ago
    What a smart entrepreneur he was to commit fraud!
    - goalonetwo 3y ago
      messing up and defrauding that way doesn't negate the fact that you still need to be smart on some level(depending on your definition) to create an IT company. We should definitely punish the fraud. But also look at rehabilitation. In this case, we are taking someone that could under the right circumstance be a net positive for society and putting him in jail for 5 years where he will most probably come out as a destroyed human. I will never understand how people desire for revenge negate the bigger picture.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - dilyevsky 3y ago
        Retribution is an important component of an effective judicial system. It provides approximation of justice (yes) and creates deterrence. Also that was an IT company (or rather many companies) in name only. By that definition those patent troll holdings are “IT companies” too
      - _jal 3y ago
        > I will never understand how people desire for revenge negate the bigger picture. It is more that people tend to be extremely selective about when they see that bigger picture. There are lots of smart people rotting in prison who committed very similar crimes who never seem to elicit sympathy. Coincidentally, they tended not to be white collar strivers before being busted.
      - ska 3y ago
        > where he will most probably come out as a destroyed human. This is more evidence of the flaws of the (US, anyway) penal system that an argument against custodial sentences in general, no? I get where you are coming from, but do you have practical alternatives? A slap on the wrist is probably overall a worse (global) outcome...
      - slingnow 3y ago
        > messing up and defrauding ... When you've created 20 shell companies, I think at this point you've gone beyond "messing up". Just like there's a difference between a crime-of-passion single murder and a serial killer. Rehabilitation is another issue entirely. I really wish we had a system in place to make that happen, but we don't. Putting him away isn't about revenge at all, at least not to me.
      - ozr 3y ago
        He didn't 'mess up'. This wasn't an accident. Wire fraud has an intent requirement. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent acted with the intent to defraud, specifically, the 'intent to deceive and cheat'. Not punishing this is the same as allowing it.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Because he’s a criminal cheating society out of public goods for personal gain? What has accelerationism done to your mind?
  - kevsim 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure if you have to commit wire fraud to build your business, you can't really claim to be that great an entrepreneur.
  - not2b 3y ago
    It will better our society because it will deter other smart entrepreneurs from committing this kind of blatant fraud. If anyone here is ever tempted to try to acquire an asset under false pretenses, just don't, or prison could be in your future.
  - slingnow 3y ago
    Because clearly that "smart entrepreneur" has demonstrated that he has no issue willfully committing an elaborate fraud. It's not a stretch to believe that its better for society to keep people like this (a combination of high intelligence and low morals) in a place where they can't continue to perpetrate clever schemes.
  - cortesoft 3y ago
    Smart people who are willing to commit fraud for profit are some of the most dangerous people in our society. Stupid people are limited in the damage they can do.
  - add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
    hackernews.txt
  - janosdebugs 3y ago
    I'm all for rehabilitation, but the serious amount of criminal energy that went into this scheme would have been better spent building something useful. A thought clearly lost on this individual. Furthermore, he used his ill-gotten IP addresses to house spammers, which was actively causing harm beyond just hoarding addresses.
  - fturst 3y ago
    Robbing banks require a lot of smarts too. Say, why do we put bank robbers in jail when they could be smart entrepreneurs instead?
  - WD40forRust 3y ago
    You are right, and should not be down-dooted.
ozr 3y ago
The main element of the crime here was creating imaginary people to 'sign' the affidavits submitted to ARIN. Phony companies, phony people, etc. Then the jail time is calculated based on the value of what was taken as a result of the fraud. 5 years seems fairly reasonable for a multi-million dollar scheme, involving multiple employees, explicitly designed to defraud.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  White collar crime getting a lengthy custodial sentence is not the normal.
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    But should be ...
  - infecto 3y ago
    Do you have evidence/data to back this up?
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      My view on it is coloured by the way my country chases down social welfare fraud, but hardly tried with white collar crime which hits the country far harder [1]. The second link [2] is about the US. [1] https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300878382/newsable-billions- https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300878382/newsable-bill... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47477754 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47477754
gruez 3y ago
That's in line with US sentencing guidelines[1][2][3]. Most of it came from the fact that the ip addresses were worth millions. [1] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-2-c#2b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot... [2] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-3#3b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot... [3] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-5 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot...
not2b 3y ago
Fines don't work, they are treated like the cost of doing business, and are easy to escape (if the corporation, not the person, is fined, move as much of the money away as possible and have the corporation go bankrupt). So execs need to consider that serious prison time is a possibility, or there will be no constraints on bad behavior.
Ensorceled 3y ago
>> "Prosecutors estimated those addresses were valued at between $10 million and $14 million." >> "production of notarized affidavits in the names of people who didn’t exist" > 5 years in jail seems a bit of an overreaction. Multiple counts of fraud that would have netted $10M and did net a percentage of that? Breaking the notarization process? By a CEO of a tech company? 5 years seems about right, maybe even too lenient.
primitivesuave 3y ago
If someone walks into a bank and carries out an unlawful scheme (i.e. fake notarized paperwork) that nets millions of dollars, 5 years would be a lenient sentence. Also, it is 3 years in jail followed by 2 years of supervised release.
jacquesm 3y ago
For fraud?
snvzz 3y ago
This is evil, and I feel zero sympathy. They should indeed make an example out of him.

_jal 3y ago

He aimed too low.

I guess you missed this part: > Prosecutors showed that each of those shell companies involved the production of notarized affidavits in the names of people who didn’t exist.

goalonetwo 3y ago
No I didn't. I'm wondering how putting someone that is arguably a smart entrepreneur behind jail for 5 year is going to better our society. We need to think about the bigger picture and how this fits into rehabilitation.
- HomeDeLaPot 3y ago
  What a smart entrepreneur he was to commit fraud!
  - goalonetwo 3y ago
    messing up and defrauding that way doesn't negate the fact that you still need to be smart on some level(depending on your definition) to create an IT company. We should definitely punish the fraud. But also look at rehabilitation. In this case, we are taking someone that could under the right circumstance be a net positive for society and putting him in jail for 5 years where he will most probably come out as a destroyed human. I will never understand how people desire for revenge negate the bigger picture.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dilyevsky 3y ago
      Retribution is an important component of an effective judicial system. It provides approximation of justice (yes) and creates deterrence. Also that was an IT company (or rather many companies) in name only. By that definition those patent troll holdings are “IT companies” too
    - _jal 3y ago
      > I will never understand how people desire for revenge negate the bigger picture. It is more that people tend to be extremely selective about when they see that bigger picture. There are lots of smart people rotting in prison who committed very similar crimes who never seem to elicit sympathy. Coincidentally, they tended not to be white collar strivers before being busted.
    - ska 3y ago
      > where he will most probably come out as a destroyed human. This is more evidence of the flaws of the (US, anyway) penal system that an argument against custodial sentences in general, no? I get where you are coming from, but do you have practical alternatives? A slap on the wrist is probably overall a worse (global) outcome...
    - slingnow 3y ago
      > messing up and defrauding ... When you've created 20 shell companies, I think at this point you've gone beyond "messing up". Just like there's a difference between a crime-of-passion single murder and a serial killer. Rehabilitation is another issue entirely. I really wish we had a system in place to make that happen, but we don't. Putting him away isn't about revenge at all, at least not to me.
    - ozr 3y ago
      He didn't 'mess up'. This wasn't an accident. Wire fraud has an intent requirement. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent acted with the intent to defraud, specifically, the 'intent to deceive and cheat'. Not punishing this is the same as allowing it.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Because he’s a criminal cheating society out of public goods for personal gain? What has accelerationism done to your mind?
- kevsim 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure if you have to commit wire fraud to build your business, you can't really claim to be that great an entrepreneur.
- not2b 3y ago
  It will better our society because it will deter other smart entrepreneurs from committing this kind of blatant fraud. If anyone here is ever tempted to try to acquire an asset under false pretenses, just don't, or prison could be in your future.
- slingnow 3y ago
  Because clearly that "smart entrepreneur" has demonstrated that he has no issue willfully committing an elaborate fraud. It's not a stretch to believe that its better for society to keep people like this (a combination of high intelligence and low morals) in a place where they can't continue to perpetrate clever schemes.
- cortesoft 3y ago
  Smart people who are willing to commit fraud for profit are some of the most dangerous people in our society. Stupid people are limited in the damage they can do.
- add-sub-mul-div 3y ago
  hackernews.txt
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  I'm all for rehabilitation, but the serious amount of criminal energy that went into this scheme would have been better spent building something useful. A thought clearly lost on this individual. Furthermore, he used his ill-gotten IP addresses to house spammers, which was actively causing harm beyond just hoarding addresses.
- fturst 3y ago
  Robbing banks require a lot of smarts too. Say, why do we put bank robbers in jail when they could be smart entrepreneurs instead?
- WD40forRust 3y ago
  You are right, and should not be down-dooted.

ozr 3y ago

The main element of the crime here was creating imaginary people to 'sign' the affidavits submitted to ARIN. Phony companies, phony people, etc. Then the jail time is calculated based on the value of what was taken as a result of the fraud. 5 years seems fairly reasonable for a multi-million dollar scheme, involving multiple employees, explicitly designed to defraud.

lostlogin 3y ago
White collar crime getting a lengthy custodial sentence is not the normal.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  But should be ...
- infecto 3y ago
  Do you have evidence/data to back this up?
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    My view on it is coloured by the way my country chases down social welfare fraud, but hardly tried with white collar crime which hits the country far harder [1]. The second link [2] is about the US. [1] https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300878382/newsable-billions- https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/300878382/newsable-bill... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47477754 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47477754

gruez 3y ago

That's in line with US sentencing guidelines[1][2][3]. Most of it came from the fact that the ip addresses were worth millions. [1] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-2-c#2b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot... [2] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-3#3b11 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot... [3] https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annotated-2021-chapter-5 https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2021-guidelines-manual/annot...

not2b 3y ago

Fines don't work, they are treated like the cost of doing business, and are easy to escape (if the corporation, not the person, is fined, move as much of the money away as possible and have the corporation go bankrupt). So execs need to consider that serious prison time is a possibility, or there will be no constraints on bad behavior.

Ensorceled 3y ago

>> "Prosecutors estimated those addresses were valued at between $10 million and $14 million." >> "production of notarized affidavits in the names of people who didn’t exist" > 5 years in jail seems a bit of an overreaction. Multiple counts of fraud that would have netted $10M and did net a percentage of that? Breaking the notarization process? By a CEO of a tech company? 5 years seems about right, maybe even too lenient.

primitivesuave 3y ago

If someone walks into a bank and carries out an unlawful scheme (i.e. fake notarized paperwork) that nets millions of dollars, 5 years would be a lenient sentence. Also, it is 3 years in jail followed by 2 years of supervised release.

jacquesm 3y ago

For fraud?

snvzz 3y ago

This is evil, and I feel zero sympathy. They should indeed make an example out of him.