[bogwog]

Imagine if it was only a fine: say, 90% of all your money/assets. That sounds like a crazy gamble, but people gamble money all the time. Lots of people would be willing to take that risk.

But prison time scares everybody. You can't get those years back, no matter how wealthy you are.

[Phillip98798]

I hear that. I just wonder what exactly it is we're accomplishing here in terms of justice. More corporate compliance and fear? Where is the line going to be drawn? Hyperbolic perhaps, but what's to stop the law from going after salaried people with side projects? Oh, you visited the stackoverflow career page during your 9-5? That's fraud. I'm exaggerating, but the precedent is there. Cases like this can create a slippery slope to complete subservience to big corporations.

[bogwog]

> Oh, you visited the stackoverflow career page during your 9-5? That's fraud. I'm exaggerating

So you're saying that what this guy did isn't clearly fraud? I don't see how you could say that, unless you misunderstood the situation. It is, very clearly, 100% fraud.

In addition to the money Netflix was paying him as part of his salary, he was also secretly taking a cut of the money flowing to contractors.

It's like when a government sends aid money to another government after a natural disaster, but all the corrupt officials steal it so that eventually there's very little left for the original purpose.

[Phillip98798]

Outside SV, I have friends in manufacturing. They tell me stories like this all the time. They have to get this executive on their side to win this deal or that deal. I wouldn't dare try to defend the morality of it, but this is capitalism right? I personally believe the corrupt officials example you bring up is much worse than this though. One is often a life and death situation and the other is about protecting the interests of a successful multi-billion dollar corporation.

[bogwog]

> but this is capitalism right?

Nope, just fraud. If a contractor makes a deal with the company, that's perfectly fine, normal capitalism. If they make a personal deal with an executive who is supposed to be representing the company in negotiations, then that's straight up bribery.

Capitalism certainly motivates people to commit this type of fraud, but that's why we have laws and regulations. Unregulated capitalism doesn't work.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, or even that it isn't common (this whole comment section suggests that it's quite rampant), just that it's clearly wrong, both from a moral point of view, and because it can cause damage to shareholders. It can even hurt the larger market and society because it means that a company with a superior product/service/innovation will fail because their competitors aren't playing fair.

> the other is about protecting the interests of a successful multi-billion dollar corporation.

It's about protecting shareholders. What would the economy look like if the government didn't make an effort to prevent fraud? Investors wouldn't want to invest, companies wouldn't be able to find funding, etc.

[philwelch]

Judging by how many people end up there, prison time does not seem to be a particularly effective deterrent either.