3 ms·
They don't have the same ownership though. Imagine if you own 70% of one company and 40% of another, and then the company you own 40% of is de-banked in a count
by Sparyjerry 2y ago
They don't have the same ownership though. Imagine if you own 70% of one company and 40% of another, and then the company you own 40% of is de-banked in a country because the company you own 70% of chose to stop doing business in that country. It's corruption at an unprecedented scale.
- Rinzler89 2y agoHow is this corruption just because countries have different rules and laws? Not every country has the same laws like the US/Angloshpere. Just because you don't like the ruling, and see it as unfair, doesn't automatically make it corruption. Did the judge break Brazilian laws? If yes, then we can say it's corruption. Not saying there isn't corruption in Brasil since there definitely is, I'm saying, is this particular ruling a case of corruption by Brasil's laws, yes or no?
- lobocinza 2y agoIt is not as simple as that. The law said that 2+2=4 and this was the accepted jurisprudence but now he is saying that 2+2=5 because he wants and he can do that because he is a supreme court judge and his decisions legally are the new accepted interpretation of the law. It's a flaw in Brazilian political that enables supreme court judges to virtually do whatever they want including legislating because they can pick any law and bend it. In a healthy system the supreme court would be challenged by the senate but this doesn't happen because most senators are corrupt and it is the supreme court who judge such cases.
- throwawayVDJDJD 2y ago[dead]