Comment by DANmode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DANmode | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> He isn't saying they won't prosecute

That was the direct context of his statement.

> Is that what you're saying?

I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department).

> What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org

Plenty. All the way back before the East India Trading Company - work your way out from there.

Many business structures and owners only follow laws as is convenient - expected, if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket and/or inconvenience ls that the ownership is insulated from.

> He isn't saying they won't prosecute > That was the direct context of his statement.

He prosecuted them, and chose fines over criminal punishments. If this was due to maliciousness or corruption, I'm glad that whoever openly explained it all in this interview gave up his plot. /s

> I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department).

I'm saying that you're so good at reading between the lines, that you no longer see the lines. You say all these random facts, but aren't connecting them to prove any corruption. If our judicial system worked the way you read between the lines, we'd all be in prison.

> All the way back before the East India Trading Company

What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today. Even the world in the 80s and 90s is no longer remotely the same.

> if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket

Nobody ever actually knows what fine they will get. One day it's a fine, another day it's a judge making an example. No business exec in their sane mind would ever risk this. No lawyer in a sane mind would ever advise this. It's an incredibly uninformed, foolish position to only see a couple of perverse incentives, and be completely blind to the overwhelming amount of positive incentives.

> He prosecuted them, and chose fines over criminal punishments.

So no actual prosecution, none worthy of considering prevention. Predominantly citizens being hit.

> You say all these random facts

Financial institutions paying out lottery jackpots to members of administrations that didn’t meaningfully harm them is far from random.

> What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today

Unchecked ignorance. Go about your business.

> What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today Unchecked ignorance.

What relevant examples of getting away with corruption can we glean from a pre-enlightenment, pre-formal-police, pre-constitution, pre-checks-and-balances, pre-judiciary-act, pre-telegraph, pre-paper-trail, pre-free-journalism, pre-internet, pre-camera-phones, pre-surveillance, pre-data-centers, pre-whistleblowers, pre-structures of accountability world?

Corruption has gotten magnitudes harder to get away with (even since 00s), which is why history is irrelevant here. You would need something extraordinary, like becoming a president with criminal immunity and self-pardon powers, and getting an electoral majority to support you being openly corrupt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com