3 ms·
"In May, officials determined the company breached a 2021 agreement that had shielded Boeing from a criminal charge of conspiracy to commit fraud arising from t
by lukan 2y ago
"In May, officials determined the company breached a 2021 agreement that had shielded Boeing from a criminal charge of conspiracy to commit fraud arising from two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019 involving the 737 MAX jet.
Under the 2021 deal, the Justice Department agreed not to prosecute Boeing over allegations it defrauded the Federal Aviation Administration so long as the company overhauled its compliance practices and submitted regular reports. Boeing also agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle the investigation"
The 2.5 billion sound like a bribe to me, to avoid criminal charges. And Boeing thought that was enough, but it seems they did not assume that the FAA was also serious, that they still need to "overhaul its compliance practices and submitted regular reports".
edit: we are talking about potential manslaughter in hundreds of cases here, because this is what a criminal investigation could lead to, not a fine for violating arbitary regulations
- nathancahill 2y agoIndeed. For a very good book on the subject, read "The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives" (2017)
- hugh-avherald 2y agoI think it's a stretch to say that a written deal in which a party pays damages is a bribe by that party.
- lukan 2y agoIf this payment avoids potential criminal charges about manslaughter, I think it is not.
- thelittleone 2y agoGees I wonder if the federal government would offer Joe Public a second chance if he defrauded them.
- yetihehe 2y agoIf he paid 2.5 billion then most probably yes.
- rob74 2y agoAlso, if the government depended on Joe Public for all sorts of military and civilian projects, that would help.
- Arnt 2y agoThat happens all the time. You find a good lawyer, the lawyer goes to the prosecutor and says "this is going to end with a fine of about x, why don't we save ourselves work and my client just pays x straight away?" If the assessment is sound and the prosecutor would rather do something else...
- A_D_E_P_T 2y agoThat never happens after an indictment without a plea. I'm not aware of it ever happening before an indictment, either. People don't always know that they're under investigation, and, even if you know that you're being investigated, many (if not most) investigations don't end with indictments -- they're quietly dropped -- so it can be quite dangerous to do what you suggest, as it makes an indictment far more likely.
- Arnt 2y agoI know about it happening in several jurisdictions. A nice big donation to the Red Cross and a quiet chat with a contrite attitude. Every course of action is risky if you've done something illegal and the relevant authority is aware of it.
- Sakos 2y agoWe regularly use fines to punish businesses, usually in combination with conditions for regulatory or legal compliance. I don't recall people calling it a bribe in these cases. This happens in the EU a lot.
- onli 2y agoFines for murder cases are not that common. Boring killed those passengers, a criminal investigation would have looked into that. Sure looks like a bribe.
- _3u10 2y agoThis isn’t a murder case, it’s a fraud case. There’s zero chance of conviction on murder.
- lukan 2y agoThat is right. It is not murder, but it would be something that could lead to manslaughter charges.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoThose people are dead because of Boeing. Corporate manslaughter is a thing in UK. And let’s not be under illusion that if my actions accidentally resulted in deaths of hundreds of people I would see any fresh air ever again
- jajko 2y agoManslaughter != murder, thats a difference between 3 years and 15-to-life in prison (not in Norway though). Also, don't fall under the spell of some absolute fairness of our current societies, of course ultra rich are treated differently than regular Joe (or ie former presidents, prime ministers, olympic gold medalists etc), at least until mass media gets in. And Boeing is a strategic military provider not only to US, more a typical 'too-big-to-fail' category.
- szundi 2y agoCriminal charges maybe on the government side too?
- sschueller 2y agoIf the executives where smart they would have left after getting the deferred prosecution agreement. That way they could claim that it wasn't in their hands anymore and therefore they are not responsible. Deferred prosecution should be eliminated and if a company is too big to fail then it should be nationalized and the execs should face prosecution.
- lupusreal 2y agoIt's not a bribe, or even like a bribe, unless the individuals on the government side of this deal were personally enriched from this settlement (they weren't.) That 2.5 billion was paid to the government, not to the justice department personnel.
- lukan 2y agoIt is definitely possible to also bribe organisations. The individual members will profit and some members even more. Also note, that I did not claim it is a bribe, but that it sounds to me like this (as a non lawyer). Because we are talking about potential manslaughter here.
- nolok 2y ago> The 2.5 billion sound like a bribe to me, to avoid criminal charges. And Boeing thought that was enough, but it seems they did not assume that the FAA was also serious, that they still need to "overhaul its compliance practices and submitted regular reports". To be honest it might have been just enough, since nothing was done. If they had been serious before, they would have planned some sort of check or control as a follow up to that 2021 decision, but they didn't. But then doors started falling from the skies and people started to have questions about what kind of shoddy plane building they were allowing. That's when the FAA started their investigations.
- xnorswap 2y agoDoors started falling from US based airlines. Boeing got unlucky in that sense. Had it been a flight out of Africa or Asia then I suspect regulators would still be turning a blind eye.