What did her son have to do with anything? And quite frankly, even though the optics were probably not very good, I don't know of any corruption on the part of Ursula von der Leyen that was conclusively shown.
She hired the company where her son was working using taxpayer money. And then that company paid commission for it to her son. So she indirectly paid taxpayer money to her son.
Her son worked in the silicon valley office in a very junior position at the time. That's very far removed from the German public sector consulting. And where did you get that bit about commissions? I'm pretty sure that McKinsey doesn't pay any commissions whatsoever to junior consultants.
This isn't remotely an example of corruption unless there is a direct conflict of interest.
If she hired her son directly, or as part of the team, if he was lobbying her, then it's a problem.
But if her son worked at IBM and she, as Defence Minister hired IBM for some defence contract, then it's irrelevant.
Edit: I should be clear, among the elite, specifically if there are central groups which exist especially within EU nations, and also 'bubbles' in the US i.e. Valley, Hollywood, NY Finance etc. it's very common for 'big contracts' to go to so-and-so, and as a 'favour' the so-and-so takes on 'sufficiently credentialed son/daughter'. For example, if you're the top Defence bureaucrat and you hire 'Bain & Co.' to do a procurement analysis ... well ... you're son with a newly minted MBA might find it much easier to get hired there. While this kind of 'soft nepotism' is arguably problematic, it's also not so bad. It's when the 'wife, niece and grandson of the French President' have 'fully paid positions in the bureaucracy' for which they literally do nothing, or when the PM hires his college buddy's law firm for a $100M boondoggle that it gets worse.
Interestingly there was a similar case in Saudi Arabia a few years back, where McKinsey hired the sons of bureaucrats in Aramco and other government departments in exchange for all the lucrative consulting contracts. Goldman Sachs did the same with 1MDB and Libya and were caught. It's an open secret now that giving the kids the jobs is a foolproof route to getting contracts.
People are misunderstanding the nature of this stuff.
This is not corruption, it's just favours.
Nobody is awarding a major contract to get their kid an associate job at McKinsey.
The contract is awarded to McKinsey, if the person holding the purse has someone looking to get into such a role, then it's a nice thing that McKinsey can do in return.
My mother was a director of customer service and used to hire all of my friends in high school ... because they were my friends. It's normal.
It's technically not very above bar, but it's not necessarily corrupt. Most people get jobs through their networks, this is 'kind of' that.
Except McKinsey didn't hire them after getting the contracts, but before, which clearly positions it to get many contracts. A few years back, it was clear as day that most of the govt business went to McKinsey in the Middle East, while BCG and Bain often received scraps.
It's nothing. McKinsey is a huge outfit, hiring 8 analysts is nothing. In fact it will help McKinsey more than anyone else as it would help them develop closer relationships with House of Saud.
The Saudi government is not giving McKinsey huge contracts because so and so's kid got hired there - point blank.
Also remember these kids are already stinking rich they don't even need to work.
And it's also a part of the world where business is done on the basis of relationships.
When a firm is giving Ferraris as 'kickbacks' then it's corruption but not this.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if you are IBM or Microsoft you better hire Ursula's sons to get contracts. How much money her sons receive is irrelevant.