Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

> What proof is there these services were never rendered? Neither article you cited claims that

Both articles describe the transfers as misappropriations of funds. These transfers were a revelation not only to Nissan, but also to Renault. They prompted probes in both France and Japan (and likely will, at this point, in the United States), it fits a pattern of embezzlement.

Broadly speaking, if management finds their operational budget in their personal account without the Board's knowledge, that's fraud.

The Japanese criminal-justice system is deeply flawed. But allegations are made in multiple cases across multiple jurisdictions and describe seriously criminal behavior.

View on HN

Didn't the SBA payments continue after Ghosn left? And folks said these types of payments generally got a lot of levels of approval? A reminder that he has been prohibited from telling his side of the story so far.

A lot of his complaints was that the prosecutors were leaking TONS of info but he was prohibited from replying and that he had no guarantee of a trial date.

This whole compensation thing seemed so weak. The filings disclosed what he was paid, there was no agreement to pay him more. He was keeping track it seemed like of what he felt he should get paid. I'm sure he (and many other CEO's) sometimes calculate how much they believe they should get -> maybe they propose those numbers to the board etc. How is that criminal? He wasn't paid that much if you look at it. There are .bomb scammers getting paid far more.

The other odd thing is the claim that he didn't render services. By all accounts the guy was a workaholic.

For this he's been in jail with no confirmed trial date. Given the supposedly slam dunk nature of the case why don't they go to trial on the compensation FEIL charges?

> Didn't the SBA payments continue after Ghosn left?

Given the specific payments aren't publicly detailed, it would be impossible to say.

> And folks said these types of payments generally got a lot of levels of approval?

This is contradicted by both Nissan and Renault's Boards. (The approvers were Ghosn and the other executive in jail in Japan.)

> Both articles describe the transfers as misappropriations of funds

"Describing as" != prove. And when it comes to throwing people in jail we should strive for prove.

> Broadly speaking, if management finds their operational budget in their personal account without the Board's knowledge, that's fraud.

First, no Nissan funds were in Ghosn's "personal account." Not sure where you're getting that. The articles clearly describe GFI as an arm of Nissan directly controlled by Ghosn but that is not a personal account -- it was still a Nissan account.

Second, Ghosn's defense has been all along that others in the firm approved the transactions. Someone somewhere was clearly signing the checks -- I don't know how true this is but it is a legitimate defense.

Allegations are not proof. I can accuse you of anything -- doesn't make it true.

Ghosn may indeed have engaged in criminal activity but nothing you describe proves it, or even seriously indicates it.

> when it comes to throwing people in jail we should strive for prove

Pre-trial detention is common worldwide. In this case, it was loosened. (Clearly, too much.)

> Ghosn may indeed have engaged in criminal activity but nothing you describe proves it, or even seriously indicates it

It's not proven. That was for the trial to conclude. Criminal efforts in Japan, France and elsewhere will continue.

There is a preponderance of evidence, the legal standard in most jurisdictions, for bringing charges around embezzlement. I agree the compensation charges were weak. But they weren't the bombshell.

In any case, we'll get the facts over the coming years. The Japanese case will continue. And Ghosn fleeing will likely prompt investigations in the United States, at the very least for asset seizure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com