Hacker News Reader

This person admitted guilt and entered a non-prosecution agreement in which he agreed to help the government build a case against his former business associate.

There was a WSJ article about him last year which went into detail that he agreed to obfuscate income for this former business associate in return for the funding he initially got to get Vista off the ground.

Additionally, that WSJ article detailed that Robert Smith became aware of an investigation into him through back channels and that's the point when he started making a splash with public giving. I'll see if I dig up that article in case anyone's interested.

"The other side" as you put it is him literally admitting guilt. He could have used his massive fortune to fight it, but he'd probably lose control of the firm + other consequences resulting from that.

Edit: It was a Washington Post article, not WSJ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/09/smith-bro...)

> In a six-page statement of facts, Smith acknowledged evading more than $43 million in taxes over a decade and repeatedly filing false tax forms.

This comment doesn't strike me as especially controversial so much as annoying and preachy, ignoring the facts around his point of view already being shared. Aggressively drawing lines in the sand on principles without context is meaningless. Pre-empting a comment with "this will be controversial... lambaste me if you disagree" is just asking for an unnecessary fight.

It doesn't matter what you think on the case. Presumed innocent until proven guilty is a good paradigm for courts, but you're just some guy, who is not obligated to hold an opinion on this case at all. It's perfectly fine to say "I don't know and I don't think I've heard enough to judge one way or the other", or, if that's your take, not say anything at all.

Supporting an opinion of innocence without evidence of innocence is equally as dumb as supporting a side of guilt without evidence of guilt.

When you can read the DOJ case filings and all the facts of the case, where he actually agreed that he did in fact commit crimes, there's no need to "hear from the accused's own mouth." You're just making excuses for someone's crimes in the name of some intellectual purity exercise. Do you also believe there were "good people on both sides" in Charlottesville?

If you had actually read this article, you would see that Mr. Smith admitted he was guilty in legal documents under penalty of perjury. Is that enough due process for you?

In fact, this article is mostly focused on how the optics -a high profile (in fact, the wealthiest) African-American man, donates large sums of money to charity, etc.- seem to have concerned the prosecutors enough to accept a non-pros rather than risking trial, if they could get another billionaire's scalp in the bargain as well (said other billionaire did essentially the same thing- Smith claims it was all Brockman's idea, no doubt Brockman will claim it was all Smith's idea).

If you read the article, you’ll see that he has admitted guilt as a part of the deferred prosecution agreement.

The thing that worries me is that he was able to use money to avoid prison. This is an example of a different law for the rich and everyone else — paying a fine (not a big deal for a billionaire) to avoid prison (a very big deal for a billionaire) substantially reduces incentives to actually pay your taxes.

He admitted guilt. Do you think the media should say "However, he might be lying about being guilty" to achieve some sort of weird "balance"?

He admitted committed crimes as part of the agreement.

you could also try reading the article

its clear you are reacting to the headline and were searching for a place to put that copypasta before this article even existed

I am writing this in response to HN users: sgpl, 1986, aioprisan, mandevil, ddulaney, spamizbad, liaukovv.

(How many of you post with your real names on HN, by the way? I post with mine...)

But, you basically said the same thing, over and over (much like our news media does), which can be summarized as:

"Robert Smith is guilty because he admitted guilt"

And (by implication) that all that follows, including this magazine article, are perfectly OK and socially permissible by virtue of that fact...

To recap, you said:

o "This person admitted guilt and entered a non-prosecution agreement in which he agreed" (sgpl),

o "Smith acknowledged evading more than $43 million in taxes over a decade and repeatedly filing false tax forms." (1986)

o "he actually agreed that he did in fact commit crimes" (aioprisan)

o "Mr. Smith admitted he was guilty in legal documents under penalty of perjury" (mandevil)

o "he has admitted guilt as a part of the deferred prosecution agreement" (ddulaney)

o "He admitted guilt" (spamizbad)

o "He admitted committed crimes as part of the agreement" (liaukovv)

Well, I'm not contesting that "fact" in any way shape or form.

In fact, we all agree on it!

But, before we all have a moment of collective victory, before we put on our hats and start celebrating that yes, you can really get agreement from other posters on the Internet, let's pause for a moment, and think about this for awhile...

Let's put this "fact" (that we all agree on!) -- in proper perspective...

You see, "agreements" aka, "the admission of guilt", "the agreement that a crime was committed" -- can be coerced.

A simple example of this would be if you were in another country, and you committed no crime -- but were unlawfully placed in jail under the pretense of having committed a crime...

Now the people running that prison, in that other country, come up to you with an ultimatum... They say that you're going to have to spend 20 (or more) years there(!) -- that is, unless you sign a document (giving the apparency of a legal "agreement" to other people and the public at large -- yet having been made under coercion!) which says, which is an admission that YOU COMMITTED A CRIME... in exchange for a lesser (or no) sentence!

Now what happens when that signed statement -- reaches the media?

Under such circumstances, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

You see, it's easy to rationalize things, and say (without having been in similar circumstances) what a person should do, what you would do -- under those circumstances.

But it's not equally as easy -- to face those circumstances should you ever be put in them...

You see, that's the larger story -- the set of circumstances under which Robert Smith "agreed" (Prosecutor said, hey Robert, "agree to this or we'll prosecute you, and you'll probably go to jail for 20+ years").

None of you have ever been in a situation, a circumstance -- were all of the Federal Government's Lawyers -- all of them -- have been after you, all at the same time, for whatever reason, real or imagined...

If it were ever you, and they had a case against you (legitimate or not), and you had a deal on the table where you could avoid a 20+ year prison sentence, and all you had to do was rat on your billionaire friend (well, that and subsequently get tarred and feathered in the media!) to "make all of this go away" -- how many of you wouldn't take the easier deal, to "make it all go away"?

Let's start with most of you don't have the ethical character to post with your real names on HN...

I'd not want to be in a position where you had to make a high-level ethical decision -- where my future would be determined as a result of that decision...

Oh, and if the underlying argument is "He didn't pay his taxes" -- then my counter argument is "Paying taxes = Paying one's debt to society = Helping other people" -- but if that's the case, then

WHY ARE THERE SO MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE IN CITIES???

What is the Government (Federal, State, City, Local) -- doing to help them? Why do they continue to exist? Surely with the amount of taxes we Americans pay, you would think that Government (any tier of government) could help?

What is Government doing -- to pay it's fair share -- to society, to those people?

?

Help me to understand, please!

I claim Socratic Ignorance!

False/coerced confessions are more common than one might think. A study found that "...almost 30 percent of wrongful conviction cases overturned by DNA testing involved a false confession". Source: https://www.apa.org/research/action/speaking-of-psychology/f...

>Until I do, from the accused own's mouth, I might add, I'm going to presume innocent until proven guilty.

Rich people don't get that way by following the rules and we're right to be suspicious of them. They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, because they haven't earned it.