VW engineer pleads guilty to diesel emissions scandal
detroitnews.com
detroitnews.com
1) He was the central figure in engineering the device.
2) He understood exactly what he was doing and made repeated efforts to perpetuate the lie to the government and EPA.
3) He led efforts to damage control and roll out an update to consumers under the guise of improved performance, but really to cover his own ass when the software got stuck in "testing mode" and deteriorated engine components.
4) He lied to the US government when confronted and led efforts with conspirators to bury.
I am going to guess that his relatively short 5-year plea also comes at the price of turning state's evidence on his often mention "co-conspirators".
I'd say it's probably a little preliminary for us to assume that only a single engineer is going to wind up behind bars for this, just because he's first in doesn't mean he's last out!
More data here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-engineer-pleads-gu...
Also, didn't VW do this in Europe, too? Are we to believe this guy in the U.S. is responsible for the emissions cheating in Europe, too? At the very least top EU execs would've been aware of it, even if he was the creator and the evangelist for the device.
As far as the U.S. federal government goes, I doubt we'll see anyone else charged. They've already settled with VW, and this guy taking the fall was likely part of the settlement. We may still see some states continue their cases against VW, but I wouldn't be surprised if the DoJ pressures them to drop their cases.
Yes, this is the guy responsible for Europe too. Check out the justice.gov story I linked in parent for richer summary:
- He was an employee in Germany from 1983 - 2008
- He led the effort when he realized they couldn't engineer an engine to meet US standards in 2006
- He moved to the USA in 2008 and furthered the fraud as "Leader of Diesel Competence"
He's not an individual engineer, he was a team lead from the sound of it. Also, your experience "at a big company" has no relevance here.
http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/
It turns out "VW almost exclusively promotes their engineers to managers."
This brings Enron to mind. Yes the accountants did all the bookkeeping and they are guilty but the fraud was run from the executive suite.
What this guy did was a result of what the executives wanted not the initiator. Not just that, it went on and on and on...
To me, it's irritating that the 1st person to make the news is the engineer when clearly he's just part of the scandal. He probably had the least to spend on attorneys so he was the first to fall.
https://books.google.com/books?id=A7IRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=...
http://www.masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/Hylton_crimec...
http://www.masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/ Hylton_crimecon.pdf
If an individual is found guilty of money laundering for a drug cartel they go to jail forever. When a bank does it they get fined (HSBC).
Not saying it's a good solution, but it's one way to prevent crime.
Additionally, people who lied on their mortgage applications were also to blame.
Then of course at the top on the securities side, there were those that knew about these shady practices but went ahead anyway. So ya, some execs should be on jail probably, but even more low level sales guys and sub prime borrowers should as well.
Um, yeah, that case is so good that they needed a plea bargain ... um ... sure.
I really don't understand why this guy is signing a plea deal. This is a classic example of a case complicated enough that the jurors would almost certainly be unable to come to "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the standard for criminal charges in the US).
I wonder what's really going on.
Even with a slam dunk, prosecutors usually prefer a plea bargain. They have limited budgets, trials are expensive, and if you can get a guilty plea with an agreement on an acceptable sentence and get the defendant and a judge to sign off without the time and expense of a trial, that's a big win.
(And, if they were likely to lose at trial, its also a big win for the defendant where they aren't indigent and are paying for the defense out of their own pocket -- a plea deal is cheaper than a trial, and may get them a substantially better outcome in sentencing.)
Trial by jury is only common in TV dramas today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/us/stronger-hand-for-judge...
A couple of years ago when I sat for jury duty, during one of my last call-ins as it was, we'd been in the pool room for a good hour or so precisely because of the statistics you cite. The bailiffs were getting a bit antsy and kept leaving the room, only to return a few minutes later to answer questions from a few impatient jurors. As it turned out, there were something on the order of about 7 trials on the docket scheduled for that day, and the first 3 or 4 had already ended with a plea bargain by that point rather late in the morning. We were told they would usually schedule between 7 to 10 trials on average because most of the defendants would usually agree to a deal. They assured us we would be going to juror selection "soon" and went about their business.
The unusual thing was that the remaining trials also ended in a deal, and after staying for ~2+ hours, we were free to go. Out of my 3 months, I only ever sat on one trial but we did get called in quite a few times. I certainly didn't expect to be turned away because none of the scheduled trials actually went to trial.
As an aside, I had an opportunity at the end of my term to speak with one of the prosecutors (I was leaving my last session at the end of my term and ran into him in the parking lot as he was getting lunch) who expressed frustration with the drug laws for wasting taxpayer money and jurors' time. Very interesting discussion.
So he seems a perfect person to push for plea bargain so they can build a good case against people actually responsible for this. At least I hope they will try to do that.
But, cynic in me says that this is the end: they will claim this multi-billion dollar scam was architected, coordinated, and executed by him and only him. Move on.
there are many ways to shut someone up... Do you want to keep your family's life style? your kids at private school? your house? your car? then stay quiet. we will lawyer you up, you get a reduced sentence, will be out for good behavior in two years and we will keep you as a consultant with full pension and company benefits...just one theoretical scenario :)
many ways to influence someone in this materialistic world..
In this case just as with Jerome Kerviel, the fall guy story has to be believable when you dig, so that he can take the heat and the people responsible for setting up the system within which he operated, the people who took the decision to promote him and give him the resources to create the problem, walk away scots-free.
For example, newspapers receive thousands of pieces from hundreds of writers, the way the editorial line is kept is not with the editor telling the writers "we want you to stick to these positions and PR this line", but by the editor picking the writers who happen to really believe in the positions they want to promote on that day. Then he can say "conspiracy theories! of course we don't tell our writers what to write! this is totally independent journalism!". The editor is absolutely responsible for the editorial line and positions of the paper and by judicious selection can absolutely act in the interests of his backers/shareholders/directors, without asking his journalists to corrupt their standards.
Figure I might as well ask it here: how does it happen in Germany? If you go on reddit, you get inundated every day with tales of how strong their unions and labor protections are, and how seriously they take professional ethics and accreditation. Why didn't they feel they had the power to object to a plan like this?
Edit: I stand corrected; the DoJ release says he was working in Germany and so should have been covered by those protections:
"According to the plea agreement, from 1983 until May 2008, Liang was an employee of Volkswagen AG (VW), working in its diesel development department in Wolfsburg, Germany."
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-engineer-pleads-gu...
It's just regulations getting in the way.
The reality is that people's health are effected by the emissions now and for some time to come. I bet early deaths can be attributed to the extra pollution these cars put out and all of it could have been avoided.
I can't speak for Germany, but managers in large companies in general view EVERYTHING as a check box. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter how it's achieved, it doesn't matter if you're lying - if the box gets ticked then you've done your job.
True, but the law has long held an obligation to "fall on your sword" disobeying illegal orders, even if it comes at great personal cost. See the lack of success of the "just following orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials.
There is a undefined line between following orders and following the law.
The sales man does not know that it is illegal to sell the car. It is his own responsibility to not commit crimes. To not commit crimes one must know the definition of what a crime is. That definition can be found in the law book. In the Law book one can find that the car in question is illegal to sell.
It would be very hard for him to find that information but it is still his responsibility.
He's proposing a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument, implying strict adherence to the "fall on the sword" principle causes prosecution of salespeople.
Because there's an implication, if you accept his argument, then you either reject strict adherence to the principle(modus tollens) or accept prosecution of the salespeople(modus ponens).
You interpreted his comment as accepting prosecution of the salespeople, but I believe he intended you to conclude rejection of strict adherence to the principle.
&
Thank you for that piece of information. I did not know that it was called that. Very interesting.
Yes. There can be consequences. You could lose your job. Acting ethically despite potential personal consequences is what is demanded of a professional engineer. If you're not willing to uphold the code of ethics, you shouldn't become a licensed engineer.
The licensing requirement is supposed to help people refuse unethical demands. The business needs a license, and anyone they would hire to replace him needs a license. The engineering professional association thus has some leverage to enforce standards. Probably not enough to entirely eliminate personal consequences, but they at least reduce the number of unscrupulous people you have to compete against.
In summation, the defendant is looking a 5 years prison and $250,000 in fines, as the defendants representation agrees the charges rate at least that much, plus possible restitution to any identified victims, but the court may agree that if he testifies fully and willingly it will be reduced. So yes, it looks like there's a wider-ranged investigation in progress.
He was the manager of the entire Diesel department – that’s not "engineering level".
He just happens to be an engineer, too – because VW mostly promotes engineers to managers (even a previous CEO was a housegrown engineer)
That show was so spot on for corporate culture.
It's ridiculous that this is only being done now - everyone in the US has been screaming for it since the financial crisis in 2007-08.
In this case, three DAs have already found that top execs (and more) were implicated:
> "This cover-up was deep, wide and long-lasting. It extended from front-line engineers throughout the corner offices ... and right into the CEO suites," Schneiderman said, adding that the "toxic corporate culture that produced this fraud must be stopped."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkwsagen-emissions-idUSK...
http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...
The justice system in the US is "adversarial." The product of the process is the verdict. Any official information entered into the public record is a side product, not a primary.
In cases where a prosecutor thinks the public information is more important, they have the option of not pursuing a deal.
Obviously, this shouldn't be seen as a defense of plea deals, merely an explanation of one of the incentives that currently exist for them.
Properly funding our court systems would remove this incentive.
In the US, the prosecution can't appeal a verdict in a criminal trial. In some cases, you could be tried for the same crime in a different jurisdiction though (likely with a different prosecution as well).
A federal crime and a state crime, even if based on the same act, are different crimes. (Usually, even if they have similar popular names, with substantially different definitions.)
> (although not as a federal crime and a Puerto Rico crime).
Puerto Rico is a federal territory, therefore that would be a "federal crime" and a "federal crime".
While Puerto Rico may have local government that looks a lot like a state in its relation to the federal government (and which is treated as a state under a lot of federal statutes), Constitutionally it is not a separate sovereignty like a State, but simply an appendage of the Federal government.
So, let's say that you're in a group of 10 people and one of them will suffer an 8X loss, but you don't know who. You each set aside X, and pay 9X to the guy who turns out to take the loss. (Refund of contribution plus 8X.) You pay X for the overhead of managing the arrangement. Boom, you reinvented insurance.
There are cases where the evidence is strong, but neither side likes the uncertainty of leaving it up to the trial, so they make the above tradeoff, and save on the costs.
As for your question about "why not have a mini-trial anyway", the prosecution is required to disclose their evidence at the allocution, so there (some level) is transparency about the basis for guilt; but if you have to commit to the regular trial with all its procedures and protections, then that defeats most of the purpose.
Often, people confusedly moralize about plea bargains, when their real objection is that the government could credibly claim to be able to get an 8X penalty at all, which seems excessive given the facts of the case.
Also, not just an American thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain#Use_in_civil_law_...
There are some major issues with this though; there are many people who are likely innocent but plea guilty because they can't afford bail, and if they miss work they will lose their jobs.
Plea deals happen a lot because of the sheer volume of criminal cases; from the prosecutors point of view they reduce the variability of outcome, as well as the work needed to get the outcome, which makes it possible to handle a larger caseload.
[edit]
Also as the paper posted by a sibling comment points out, jury trials in the US are incredibly resource intensive, and it is only in the last century or so that they have become so. 97% of federal convictions are from guilty pleas.
Curious what country you are in where that's normal. Definitely not in the US. If the defendant admits their guilt, there isn't a trial in the US at all, it's done.
He wasn’t just an engineer, he was also a manager.
If this is the case and top execs really had no clue - they all must go as they clearly have no idea whats going on and how to run a company.
Yes, the engineer deserves to go to prison because he pulled the trigger. But his boss deserves just as much if not more prison time.
"We must be sure to prevent the authority from testing the Gen 1," the indictment said an employee wrote in German. "If Gen 1 goes onto the roller at the CARB, then we'll have nothing more to laugh about!!!!!"[1]
[1]same story from reuters.com: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-emissions-idUSK...
See recent Wells Fargo scandal
Even though a "defeat device" is technically against the rules, it seems unlikely that there will actually be fines or penalties for it. There isn't any environmental regulator in Europe with the same kind of powers that the EPA and CARB have.
Legal action in Europe against VW looks more likely to be from the consumer protection angle. That is, customers were mid-sold vehicles that claimed to be compliant with emissions limits but in fact are not.
Does clean air depends on none of them misbehaving?
Either this guy is the "fall guy", or the whole system is very fragile.
The whole thing is a systemic failure. Regulations don't work. Regulators are generally lousy at their jobs (if they aren't working for the regulatees, they will be - I'm talking about the top regulators, mind you). The "free market" failed, because if everyone is cheating no one is cheating.
It's time we start working on a replacement, because what we've got now is busted.
Oh well. Sic transit.
"German engineering!"
"Ah, ah, ah. The VW kind?"
Sad.
but if not, yeah, this would be a farcical miscarriage of justice if a bunch of engineers end up taking the fall for this.
No more dealing with managers not understanding anything about what they manage.
Doing this — only promoting your oen engineers to managers — improves efficiency by many times.
And the story of VW in the US started with the EPA violating the law and discriminating against VW for a few years, after which most likely even experienced talent would say "if they break the law to keep us out and protect their local industry, let's break the same law to get us in". (Read more about this in the SPIEGEL).
This isn't a guy quietly tinkering with hardware or writing code in a cubicle; he was in a leadership position.
Seems to me, though, they should be charging people above and below him, as long as it can be proven that they knowingly assisted in this.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not suggesting this guy taking the dive for the execs is ok, just that someone lying about emission test results may not be as horrible as they're trying to make it sound.
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0535/6917/products/mistakes...
edit: actually saw the number of cars.
Regarding regulatory compliance, defeat devices are clearly unacceptable; if the regulated requirements are considered inappropriate for whatever reason, they should be challenged through political or legal process, not by detecting test conditions and altering behavior.
I think it's the tension between emissions requirements and customer demand for powerful vehicles. As allowable emissions decrease over the years, which automaker will be successful shipping a vehicle that has less power than the previous model?
And that's the whole reason for emissions requirements, left to their own devices, automakers and customers weren't getting it done.
The reasons someone lying about emissions tests are really as bad is it sounds:
- If one manufacturer lies, other manufacturers are forced to either lie, or lose customers in the market to the liar. Thus, dangerous cars become more common, car makers that try to do the right thing make lower profits and sell fewer cars.
- In this case, "clean diesel" lies likely led other manufacturers to waste resources on trying to make clean diesel of their own. Again, competitive advantage goes to the liar who doesn't actually have to make clean diesel; they just say they did, and sell boatloads of it.
- Emissions standards are already too lenient. Our planet's steadily rising temperature shows us this. No one here at HN (I would hope) would be arguing that climate change isn't happening or that humans aren't causing a significant portion of it, so the only sensible thing is to look at what causes it, and regulate it (somehow; I am not an expert on the subject of how emissions are regulated or should be regulated, but I know it's not really working, thus far...as autos are a significant portion of emissions).
So, if the requirements are "way over the line", how does one explain other auto makers complying with them? Are they all lying? There's been increased scrutiny, so it's likely to come out, if they have been. Wouldn't that be an interesting situation?
I think it's ridiculous (at least in Canada) that I have to pay $30 every other year to have my car emissions tested while city buses and trucks spew black clouds unopposed. Just feels like a useless cash grab.
Buses and trucks are also regulated and have to adhere to emissions standards, and get tested regularly; at least, in the US, they are regulated more heavily than autos (or, at least have more paperwork and legal obligations involved in driving them, and have a higher tax burden).
People riding a bus are, in aggregate, producing much less waste than if they were all driving automobiles...so, it's OK that a bus produces quite a bit more waste than a single automobile. And, I might even argue we aren't going far enough to incentivize people to take mass transit rather than driving themselves.
The cargo industry is responsible for a tremendous amount of emissions; freight ships account for millions of cars worth of emissions, in fact. That's definitely an area for improvement on a worldwide level. I'm in no way saying there aren't other sources of emissions, or that regulating auto emissions effectively will solve the problem. Merely that ignoring emissions from cars will exacerbate what is already the single biggest problem humanity faces going forward.
Right, but (per parent comment), you misrepresented the basis for the tradeoff behind the regulation -- you justified it by the need to prevent global warming, but the regulation pertained to NO2, not CO2, and satisfying the former typically makes the car less CO2-efficient.
So, you were justifying a GW-worsening regulation by the need to lessen GW.
(Your point about differing limits for buses vs cars is correct though, and the parent is wrong on that issue. But it would frankly be better if they were just charged per emission and each mode decides for itself whether the extra emissions are worth it.)
Diesel, it turns out, isn't all that "clean". I hate that it's so...I drive a modern turbo diesel vehicle, and have been very disappointed to learn about the tradeoffs and negatives of that technology (though I drive a big Ford diesel, which doesn't make some of the compromises that VW was making in its small engines, and does comply with EPA regulations without trickery, to the best of my knowledge).
Burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change and produce dangerous emissions that are toxic for living things. As long as we continue to allow auto makers and the fossil fuel industry to externalize those costs, alternatives won't be competitive and won't be able to replace those fossil fuel burning vehicles.
> you were justifying a GW-worsening regulation by the need to lessen GW.
Here, it's more like: "you are free to drive the biggest and most fuel inefficient new car you like, that can be built without the government fining the manufacturer into insolvency."
The backdoor efficiency standards cause OEMs to spend more money on making lighter cars with smaller, more complicated engines, which end up being less durable and more expensive to repair.
My hypothesis is that all of the diesel-powered cars sold in the past 20 years in the US could vanish tonight, and there would be no significant change in the planet's climate vs. had people continued to drive them.
The real motivation for strictly regulating diesels is their predilection to produce oxides of nitrogen and particulates, which contribute to smog and respiratory distress.
While one has to make allowances for the climate and traffic in a particular place (the LA basin is always going to be smog-prone, and probably should be able to set its own regs for mobile pollution sources), the point of diminishing returns for adding more pollution controls to cars probably past at least 15 years ago.
If, as you're saying, you don't accept that cheating on emissions tests is criminal in nature, then the issue should be settled through commercial and civil sanctions (which could perhaps include this engineer losing his license or charter, but more importantly should include those executives suffering severe financial penalties - perhaps that's a massive decline in value in their stock compensation's value caused by VW's mandatory exit from the US market.)
I suspect it'll be the same, though at least the CEO resigned over this. I'm sure Winterkorn remains a multimillionaire, and will continue to enjoy his freedom and lack of criminal record.
As for this guy, I'm having trouble finding more details, but as "Leader of Diesel Competence", he may very well be the technical manager directly in charge of the design of the engines.