4 ms·

The part about setting up special credit policies for these pharmacies so that FedEx wouldn't lose money when said pharmacies were shut down is pretty clear tha

The part about setting up special credit policies for these pharmacies so that FedEx wouldn't lose money when said pharmacies were shut down is pretty clear that they knew there was something wrong, but they turned a blind eye anyway.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
goldenkey 12y ago
That's actually pretty standard when dealing with _any_ small business. So I wouldn't say that argument has any weight.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- pyre 12y ago
  If FedEx is signing up these businesses under special terms like this (even if they are the same ones used for legitimate businesses), it would seem (from the outside) like they were looking closely enough at the business to recognize that something was fishy. This is different than if FedEx was just accepting packages regularly from someone that kept dropping by at the local FedEx b&m store. I don't have the full story, so I'll I can do is say that it raises the likelihood (even just a little bit) that FedEx could have known. I guess one of the relevant questions to ask would be: "Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the business even does?"
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    "Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the business even does?" As far as I'm concerned it certainly should be. Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies? Let the police be the police.
    - pyre 12y ago
      I'm not saying how anything should be. These types of deals are risk-management for FedEx. It seems highly unlikely that FedEx did no homework on businesses that it was entering into risk-management deals with. > Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies? Why do you feel the need to trot out strawmen already? I was just saying that FedEx entering into such agreements just increases the likelihood that they knew something. I didn't even say by how much. I definitely said nothing about whether they should be criminally or civilly liable for anything. The question that you posted wasn't even meant to be rhetorical. I was actually raising the question because it's relevant information. I'm basically siding with no one here, and just making passing observations. It would be nice to not be attacked for it. [Edit: I guess I should add that the 'something' they might have known need not have been actionable information, or even information that makes them liable for anything. I'm just stating that it makes them more involved with said companies than, say, me if I ship a package from a FedEx store. FedEx, for example, probably knows about their revenue and shipping logistics to be able to evaluate their risk-management formulas...]
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        I didn't intend my comment as a personal attack, or even a direct reply. So I apologize that my wording gave that impression. However, I stand by my position that it shouldn't matter what FedEx knows or "could/should have known." FedEx is not the police. I also stand by my slippery slope straw man, because history has already shown that this type of expansion of civilian liability and law enforcement powers doesn't have an end goal. There is no "enough."
trhway 12y ago
could it be just some half-automated "big data"-style analysis identifying clients who are at higher risk of default and thus getting special credit policies. And i'd say it is a successful analysis at that if illegal pharmacies were among the businesses put into that set. One can imagine how any reasonable automated classificator working over previous history would put a business with 2 such attributes like "business: pharmacy" and "location: foreign" into the category with higher risk. As a side note - we have a "reasonable person" test in courts today, and, as more and more of things are being automated, i think we'll have a "reasonable automated classificator/learning system" tomorrow :)
- eli 12y ago
  That's definitely not what the indictment alleges. beginning in June 2004, FEDEX established an Online Pharmacy Credit Policy that applied only to its Internet pharmacy shippers. Under this policy, all Internet pharmacy shippers had to be approved by the Credit Department prior to opening a new account. Existing Internet pharmacies had to be reviewed by the Credit Department to ensure that they had adequate financial security. In arguing for the Online Pharmacy Credit Policy, FEDEX's Managing Director of Revenue Operations stated "[a]s the past few weeks have unfolded it is becoming more apparent to us that many of these companies are fraudulent and doing business outside Federal regulations."
  - TylerE 12y ago
    Not all online pharmacies are illegal. Think of companies shipping stuff like catheters, diabetic supplies, oxygen equipment....many of those require a prescription.
    - andyakb 12y ago
      If they are shipping items that require a prescription without verifying a prescription, then they are illegal, regardless of what the items are
      - Oxxide 12y ago
rhizome 12y ago
Or maybe it's just another name for a pre-paid account.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

goldenkey 12y ago

That's actually pretty standard when dealing with _any_ small business. So I wouldn't say that argument has any weight.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
pyre 12y ago
If FedEx is signing up these businesses under special terms like this (even if they are the same ones used for legitimate businesses), it would seem (from the outside) like they were looking closely enough at the business to recognize that something was fishy. This is different than if FedEx was just accepting packages regularly from someone that kept dropping by at the local FedEx b&m store. I don't have the full story, so I'll I can do is say that it raises the likelihood (even just a little bit) that FedEx could have known. I guess one of the relevant questions to ask would be: "Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the business even does?"
- nitrogen 12y ago
  "Is it standard for FedEx to be so hands-off when signing these businesses up that they have no clue what the business even does?" As far as I'm concerned it certainly should be. Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies? Let the police be the police.
  - pyre 12y ago
    I'm not saying how anything should be. These types of deals are risk-management for FedEx. It seems highly unlikely that FedEx did no homework on businesses that it was entering into risk-management deals with. > Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies? Why do you feel the need to trot out strawmen already? I was just saying that FedEx entering into such agreements just increases the likelihood that they knew something. I didn't even say by how much. I definitely said nothing about whether they should be criminally or civilly liable for anything. The question that you posted wasn't even meant to be rhetorical. I was actually raising the question because it's relevant information. I'm basically siding with no one here, and just making passing observations. It would be nice to not be attacked for it. [Edit: I guess I should add that the 'something' they might have known need not have been actionable information, or even information that makes them liable for anything. I'm just stating that it makes them more involved with said companies than, say, me if I ship a package from a FedEx store. FedEx, for example, probably knows about their revenue and shipping logistics to be able to evaluate their risk-management formulas...]
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      I didn't intend my comment as a personal attack, or even a direct reply. So I apologize that my wording gave that impression. However, I stand by my position that it shouldn't matter what FedEx knows or "could/should have known." FedEx is not the police. I also stand by my slippery slope straw man, because history has already shown that this type of expansion of civilian liability and law enforcement powers doesn't have an end goal. There is no "enough."

trhway 12y ago

could it be just some half-automated "big data"-style analysis identifying clients who are at higher risk of default and thus getting special credit policies. And i'd say it is a successful analysis at that if illegal pharmacies were among the businesses put into that set. One can imagine how any reasonable automated classificator working over previous history would put a business with 2 such attributes like "business: pharmacy" and "location: foreign" into the category with higher risk. As a side note - we have a "reasonable person" test in courts today, and, as more and more of things are being automated, i think we'll have a "reasonable automated classificator/learning system" tomorrow :)

eli 12y ago
That's definitely not what the indictment alleges. beginning in June 2004, FEDEX established an Online Pharmacy Credit Policy that applied only to its Internet pharmacy shippers. Under this policy, all Internet pharmacy shippers had to be approved by the Credit Department prior to opening a new account. Existing Internet pharmacies had to be reviewed by the Credit Department to ensure that they had adequate financial security. In arguing for the Online Pharmacy Credit Policy, FEDEX's Managing Director of Revenue Operations stated "[a]s the past few weeks have unfolded it is becoming more apparent to us that many of these companies are fraudulent and doing business outside Federal regulations."
- TylerE 12y ago
  Not all online pharmacies are illegal. Think of companies shipping stuff like catheters, diabetic supplies, oxygen equipment....many of those require a prescription.
  - andyakb 12y ago
    If they are shipping items that require a prescription without verifying a prescription, then they are illegal, regardless of what the items are
    - Oxxide 12y ago

rhizome 12y ago

Or maybe it's just another name for a pre-paid account.