Interpol issues 'red notice' for Carlos Ghosn's arrest | Hacker News Reader

Interpol issues 'red notice' for Carlos Ghosn's arrest

bbc.co.uk

189 pointsdynamite-ready227 comments

Not particularly well informed on this, just want to point out to those trying to decide between scenario 1 (Ghosn broke the law with impunity because he was a CEO and felt entitled) and scenario 2 (Ghosn is really being persecuted for being a non-Japanese CEO of a Japanese company), that it is logically possible for both to be true. In other words, like Martha Stewart, he might not have been doing anything that his peers weren't also doing, but also doing things that were illegal.

Of course, the fact that scenarios 1 and 2 are not incompatible, is not proof that they both happened, just pointing out that it is logically possible for both to be true.

Escaping state surveillance from Japan and then landing up in Lebanon via Turkey while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

One could argue this was a rightful fleeing of persecution. But it complicates the picture on many levels.

EDIT: looks like he kept a second French passport [1]. He would have only had to break many laws in two countries, mostly around aviation and declaration.

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/02/national/carlos...

As reported in the news, he had two French passports and was allowed to carry one of them in Japan in a locked case. Presumably he broke the lock and used it to enter Turkey and Lebanon.

> As reported in the news

Do you have a source for this? It would be unusual (and incompetent) for the Japanese to permit this.

"Ghosn carried second French passport with him after release from jail: source" in the Japan Times

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/02/national/carlos...

You shouldn't even need to show a passport to fly through a country's airport if you transit through.

I wonder why the plane did not go directly to Lebanon - it is probably to avoid raising suspicion.

> You shouldn't even need to show a passport to fly through a country's airport if you transit through

There are all kinds of manifest declaration requirements that would need to be ignored.

This is only true in some countries. It’s not in the USA for example, which requires that even connecting passengers clear the US border and customs at their point of entry.

And Canada.

They’ve finally started doing a better job of not requiring you to pickup your luggage while transiting only to drop it off another belt a minute later.

But that’s not universal.

I think the US and Canada are the exceptions rather than the rule. (Because of course they charge people for a transit visa)

It’s more likely that the “because” has to do with people claiming asylum.

If you don’t require transit visas it becomes fairly trivial to get into the US and claim asylum while supposedly in transit to somewhere else.

I don't understand that rationale. Even if you have a transit visa you could still claim asylum.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/can-you-...

The only trick would be if the government a priori refused transit visas to people suspected of seeking asylum without hearing the asylum case, which would be a gross violation of immigration law.

It wouldn’t violate the law to refuse a transit visa to someone who hasn’t yet made an asylum case and is currently located in a foreign country.

How could it?

I think you may be thinking of refusing to honor an existing valid visa at the border, rather than refusing to issue one at all before someone travels.

No country is required to honor a visa at the border. Even with a green card someone can be refused admittance to the country at the discretion of CBP.

Only citizens have an absolute right to entry.

I see. That makes sense.

9000 km by the great circle route is too far for executive jets. And you'd go via Turkey to avoid flying over Syria and Israel.

The real question is how he left in the first place.

Doesn’t Japan have exit controls?

Did they sneak him into the airport as maintenance personnel and then get him on a plane?

I was curious about this and didn't get an answer, but I found this:

Japan now supports tourism efforts but charging 1000¥ to leave the country! https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/04/10/national/japans...

Um, that's $10 USD.

There was a BBC article a couple of days ago, saying it had been reported he was helped by a band. They came to his place then left with him hidden in an instrument case (I would assume a Bass).

The airport part is not clear, but either they not very thorough when checking instruments for private jets, or they bribed someone I guess.

It’s a wild story if this article is to be believed:

https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/ex-nissan-honcho-carlos-ghosan...

(Hiding in a musicians’ case; used by musicians who really weren’t).

Surely this will be made into a movie or even a series.

I didn't know that a person can simultaneously have two valid passports of the same country. I thought you either have to declare the old one as lost or bring it to the passport office to have it invalidated, when you apply for a new one.

How does this work?

Typically for business travel. If you have to send your passport off to get a visa from an embassy, you might still have to travel to another country while waiting to get it back, for example.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/features/apply-second-uk-p...

I believe it's not too hard to do in some countries. It's usually to partition your travel history somewhat to avoid incidents. I know in the past, I'd heard that people in the US who had to do business in the middle east would often have two passports because there were enough countries that would take issue with you having visited Israel or Iran that you needed to keep them separate.

Three or more countries can participate in a Mexican standoff. If you want to visit them all, you can't show the same passport twice. Is there a limit on how many passports you can have?

I don't think this has been an issue in the last century. Countries will take a stance on it if it actually happens.

People traveling through the middle east and Israel often have two passports. One they show the israeli immigration officers, and the other they show elsewhere. Israel will interrogate when you show up on their borders with an stamp in your passport from on of the arabic states. It's just a way to get around this kind of hassle.

And (some) Arab countries will create trouble/ban you from entering if your passport has Israeli stamps...

He's actually in trouble in Lebanon now because of this. The article says he entered Israel in 2008, which is illegal in Lebanon since they are technically at war.

I have no doubt Lebanon will look the other way (the entry registry might even be in a different passport)

He's a national hero in Lebanon. He's been considered for the presidency.

I think the leb authorities will go through the motions. But I agree with you.

The bigger thieves are the Lebanese politicians who are the ire of the current protests in Lebanon. They have fleeced the country to the tune of billions... Multiples of what Carlos has been accused of.

It was a very public trip with press conference with the Israeli President (TV, photographs, etc)... Clearly the Lebanese government and judiciary have known about that trip all along and haven't cared.

Israel doesn't stamp anymore (at least the last few times I was there). You now get a small slip of paper instead. I presume for this very reason.

Even if you’re entering for business?

I've only ever gone for business.

It's the other way around. Israel stopped stamping a long time ago - but still might if you're a dick.

But if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport - or left the slip of paper in, there's a whole host of other countries that will not let you in: Syria Lebanon Libya Kuwait Iran Iraq Pakistan Sudan Yemen

Israel may ask some extra questions - but they won't refuse you entry.

In the U.K. you can get this easily if your primary passport must go to an embassy during a period in which you must travel for work, though it requires assistance from your employer in writing a letter confirming this. One would imagine France might have similar rules, though I don’t know if they do or not.

You can have however many passports the country wants to issue you.

I think some countries allow you to have multiple so you can visit counties that are at odds with each other and having a stand from one would cause issues getting into the other.

Many countries make exceptions for middle east travel because many countries complicate things if you have a stamp from Israel. So for someone with ties in Lebanon but also doing big international business, a third country could easily rationalize issuing an additional passport so that neither Lebanon or Israel see each other's stamps.

At one point in Canada, it was possible to have three valid Passports. A regular one, one for travel to Israel, and one for travel to South Africa.

Israel would give you a very hard time if you had visas/stamps from neighbouring Arab states (and vice versa).

Under Apartheid, South African visas/stamps made it very difficult to enter other sub-saharan African countries.

Just goes to show that these policies restricting people’s travels only applies to “little people”.

Or catches up people that can’t get a lawyer/consultant’s advice before booking every trip.

Every travelagent can tell you this, and a passport is like 50 bucks.

If you have the means to travel to Israel and neighboring Arab states, or to South Africa and neighboring Sub-Saharan states from Canada, you have the ability to get these passports and you really should know that you should.

> Or catches up people that can’t get a lawyer/consultant’s advice before booking every trip.

It’s 2020 now, presumably you mean “people with no access to the internet”?

Remember Manafort had two passports or perhaps 3. Another reason you need more than one is some companies physically need to get your passport to add their visa, they may take a few weeks to process it. Big time travelers often have 2 passports for this reason.

Saw this mentioned in a recent article about an Instragrammer who claims to be the youngest woman to visit every country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-13/ingenious...

> You can—and should—hold two passports from the same country, simultaneously.

...

> You just need to show written evidence of your conflicting flights, with your name on the reservation. And remember: You can book refundable tickets as proof of travel, show them at the passport office, and then cancel them later. Then you’ll have one handy for any future travel traffic jams.

The most common reason is that you used to have to surrender your passport to get a visa. Not too long ago (my first China trip), I had to leave my passport at the Chinese consulate in NYC for up to 30 days (where it went from there... who knows, but came back with a big ass full page sticker as a visa).

If you are still in possession of the original passport, the US will issue you a second passport so you can travel internationally during those events.

Same goes for applying for green cards (married a UK citizen? moving to the UK? They're going to take your passport for 30+ days).

As a Lebanese citizen, I believe that he only needed to show a Lebanese ID card to enter the country.

Or nothing at all. Usually countries can’t deny entry by their own citizens, as long as you can prove who you are.

They often do make it hard to get on the plane there though. But once you get to a port of entry, you’re fine.

>as long as you can prove who you are

How can you prove who you are without an ID? Biometrics? Is logging in to Facebook enough?

There’s probably formalized policies everywhere on that.

Likely they can lookup your passport photos.

Since denying entry to a citizen can be a constitutional violation in many places, they’ll have some criteria for the documentation actually required.

Sending you back to the embassy will just move the problem elsewhere.

Things get dicier when there’s no records of you being a citizen (e.g. you were born elsewhere but acquired a citizenship because you were born to a citizen without registering it in any way).

> Things get dicier when there’s no records of you being a citizen

Perhaps because you successfully applied for British citizenship in the UK forty years ago but the government deleted all the records! Several instances of this came to light in the Windrush scandal a couple of years ago.

The moral: if your citizenship is even slightly interesting you need to keep your passport current.

I’m worried about the opposite situation...

Getting denied boarding because I am a citizen.

By lineage, I’m a citizen of an EU country.

And the EU is launching a “not a visa but sounds a lot like a visa” travel authorization program for visa exempt passengers.

Q1 will probably be: are you a citizen of any of these EU countries?

Legally, I’ll be obligated to trace all this lineage back, through countries that no longer exist and get a lot of paperwork.

Presumably I can’t renounce said citizenship until I prove that I have it first...

Are you really automatically a citizen? In the countries I'm familiar with, lineage might grant you the right to citizenship, but you still have to request it.

Based on my interpretation, yes, automatic.

The lineage is direct: both parents are citizen’s of that country’s successor.

But maybe it’s more discretionary in reality.

There’s always people willing to give you a hard time even if you’re in the right.

At least in Canada I know how to waste a lot of their time in return.

What you are describing sounds like a right for citizenship but not actual citizenship.

Naw, the law says you acquire citizenship by being born to that country’s citizens.

It doesn’t say “can acquire”, just “acquires”.

Not unlike an American or Canadian born abroad to natural-born Americans or Canadians.

According to the article, Turkey was unaware he was in the airplane.

Indeed. Turkey has already arrested seven people who allegedly aided in the escape[1]. I expect Japan is also looking for accomplices.

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/turkey-arrests-pilots-ove...

In many countries, entering illegally is not a crime, but a civil offense.

It could also be that the Japanese were in on this: that they let him flee because they thought that the prosecution would have been seen as dubious, saving face in the process.

And even where it’s criminal, the charges may not stick if you can show that you had no other choice.

See: refugee migration.

That's a weird way to phrase it. It's like saying "theft is crime, but the charges may not stick if you show that you paid for the goods."

"Not sticking" usually refers to a loophole or procedural error, not everyone doing the right thing.

It’s really easy to get more passports.

> breaking lots of laws in at least three countries

Probably not. Crossing a border without your passport on you tends to be a pretty small offense.

Normally it should be a fine at most.

Now crossing the border with no passport to escape another country's judiciary system is a whole different aggravating circumstance.

That’s basically the definition of refugees seeking refuge and legally protected rather than aggravating.

That’s true, but if the refugee status is not confirmed later, it still can be qualified as a criminal offense (that’s the case in Germany and Russia, for example).

I figure most countries at that point focus on deportation rather than imprisonment.

They’d probably be perfectly happy if you skipped out to another country while awaiting the process.

And bail is likely if your record’s been clean while you’re awaiting the process (unless they found something they really didn’t like).

I guess the only real consequence is if you tried to immigrate there later.

Yes and no. Imprisonment costs money to the taxpayers, but it may also serve as deterrence. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/illegal-entry/chart.php?loclr=e...

From a legal standpoint the country you're entering wouldn't typically consider that an aggravating circumstance. Lebanon and Turkey aren't responsible for enforcing Japan's laws.

Without a passport, probably, that’s true, if you contact country officials. But without customs clearance and border security check it can be a criminal offense.

An offense can simultaneously be both criminal and minor.

There‘s no such thing as „minor“ offense in some legal systems, so it’s better to check the law which applies in this specific case.

>Escaping state surveillance from Japan and then landing up in Lebanon via Turkey while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

Plausible non-illegal way: go to embassy, report passport lost/stolen, get a new one.

NAL, Likely still illegal as you would be misrepresenting that you surrendered your passport and it is not lost nor stolen

Iunno, if you gave it to someone and don’t know where it is, the mental gymnastics to check the “Lost” box isn’t too difficult.

But I think they usually ask you to describe the circumstances of its loss.

I'm pretty sure the government who seized your passport won't look kindly upon you pretending you forgot you aren't allowed to have one.

Only if you're caught. Considering that the only reason you'd even attempt this would be to escape, your only concern would be not being able to return.

> Escaping state surveillance from Japan and then landing up in Lebanon via Turkey while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

I don't see at all how that follows.

It's clear he broke the Japanese exit law (you have to show your passport to leave Japan by air, unlike, say, USA, France, Australia etc). Also he violated the terms of his house arrest. Likely some others.

But while I'm hardly an expert in Turkish or Lebanese law, in most if not all countries immigration authorities have wide discretion to admit or deny people on whatever basis they wish. And while it's easy to imagine someone in Turkey taking a bribe, that could very well be an unfair belief: it's just as easy to imagine the current Turkish government being happy to poke a finger in Japan's eye in some minor and deniable fashion. As for Lebanon, someone who is a national celebrity could easily make prior arrangement to be admitted with no bribe needed.

He could have left Japan on a boat, but if not that then it was probably a private plane.

The fact that he absconded by private plane, was never in dispute.

Excerpt from the article: The private jet on which he escaped reportedly landed in Istanbul first, prompting an investigation by Turkey.

I somehow read that as not necessarily implying he started the first flight in Japan, but maybe that was it.

> you have to show your passport to leave Japan by air, unlike, say, USA, France, Australia etc

Nitpicking, but you do need to show your passport when exiting the Schengen Area (to which France is a part of)

I recently visited your country and was asked to show my passport- while I was going between Schengen countries!

So I don't think it is still part of Schengen area (or maybe in theory, but not in practice)

Won't be coming back, as Germany makes more sense for better connections to the rest of the EU, and no weird passport control on exit so I can safely keep my passport in the hotel safe while I visit Schengen countries.

Having lived in the EU for a while now, random passport check roadblocks can appear at any border and can occur within a country’s border (including on a local bus, train, etc) - it happens in most Schengen countries and Germany’s random checks are some of the most frequent and annoying.

Never had problems in Germany, ever. And it was not a random check: I was in a line of people waiting, with 2 booths and signs saying passport control. That was after checking my luggage and having already gone through security.

Having my passport checked by border agents to exit a country rubs me the wrong way.

The equivalent here in the US would be if everyone was asked to show a passport by border agents after having gone through the TSA, when flying from say NYC to Miami - not acceptable.

I'd sure like to know if other people also experienced that in the Schengen area.

Pretty normal to have passport check on exiting a country. You might have overstayed your visa and you are going to be fined or banned, or you might be a criminal and they will arrest you. Problem is that nationals are usually not extradited for crimes done in other countries, even if it happens in shengen area. So each country better check who is leaving to get criminals / fines not paid / avoid child leaving with one divorced parent.

I guarantee you that if you fly from NYC to Miami, you will not be asked for your passport after TSA checks. You can freely travel between the states.

I think that you may be European. Here we have freedom of movement, and used to laugh at the USSR where people needed papers for internal travel. Sad to see it returning, and the Shengen idea now being dead for practical purposes.

Lol.

https://thepointsguy.com/2017/02/us-cbp-domestic-flight/

"Temporary Reintroduction of Border Control"

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/border...

Thanks, this confirms what I experienced. And the bad news is Germany is also affected now :-/ I remember reading in school that freedom of movement of goods and people was one of your founding principle, so I was very surprised.

Temporary? lol! that's what was said here for the patriot act too.

Looks like the EU is scraping Schengen. I think this cast a cloud of uncertainty on EU future.

List from the page you linked of countries with "temporary" controls that don't seem temporary at all to me:

Norway (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Terrorist threats, secondary movements; ports with ferry connections with Denmark, Germany and Sweden;

Sweden (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Terrorist threats, shortcomings at the external borders; to be determined but may concern all internal borders;

Denmark (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Terrorist threats, organized criminality from Sweden; land border with Germany and with Sweden, ferry connections to Germany and to Sweden;

Germany (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Secondary movements, situation at the external borders; land border with Austria;

Austria (12 November 2019 - 12 May 2020) Secondary movements, risk related to terrorists and organized crime, situation at the external borders; land borders with Hungary and with Slovenia;

France (31 October 2019 - 30 April 2020) Persistent terrorist threat, upcoming high profile political event in Paris, secondary movements; all internal borders.

> I remember reading in school that freedom of movement of goods and people was one of your founding principle

Freedom of movement != not showing documentation. (And it doesn't need to be a passport)

The simplest example is getting into any country you're a citizen of from abroad.

Some Schengen airports have security->passport (example AMS), some others have passport->security (example CDG T2), it's a non-issue.

Pretty much every country checks passports when you're leaving. The US doesn't as I pointed out in another comment, so they can charge you for a transit visa. (Some other countries allow sterile transit and don't check passports on exit - UK comes to mind - but you need a passport to travel to pretty much anywhere else from there)

> "temporary" controls that don't seem temporary at all

They have an end date. That's pretty much the definition of temporary. And yes there were previous temporary checks that have come and gone.

(If temporary checks weren't possible I guarantee how we would be reading about how the EU was undemocratic for not allowing member states to control their borders yada yada yada, the usual cynicism and uninformed rants that are so common here)

To be fair, some of these borders are de facto permanently closed and the listed end dates listed are bullshit. Some have been maintained for nearly 5 years, with a new “temporary” 6-month closure being announced immediately after the last one ends. These countries are pretty blatantly violating Schengen but no one is going to enforce anything because that would probably force the dissolution of or withdrawal from the treaty.

This is what I supposed with the dates suspiciously in perfect synchronization, from the 12 to the 12 a semester later.

Probably the Sweden/Denmark one. I haven't seen stricter controls outside of that date range elsewhere.

The Denmark/Germany land border check has been there for around 5 years and is still operating.

Are you American by any chance? "freedom" isn't doing anything you want whenever you want. You're absolutely free to travel within EU if you can prove your identity and prove that you are legally staying here. Just like you're free to buy a car as long as you can pay for it.

An illegal immigrant or a terrorist traveling with an ak47 aren't included in the freedom of movement and goods, of course we have random border checks...

> The equivalent here in the US would be if everyone was asked to show a passport by border agents after having gone through the TSA, when flying from say NYC to Miami - not acceptable.

That has happened in the US before: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/no-more-id...

Real ID is also basically that, since you have to be legal to get an id in the US and the TSA check is linked to fed databases.

I would suggest you keep identification papers on your person when you wander about in a foreign country.

> so I can safely keep my passport in the hotel safe while I visit Schengen countries

Random border checks have always been a thing in Europe, a passport is literally made for crossing borders, why would you keep it in an hotel if you know you'll be doing the only thing it is used for.

I don't know if it's required by law or just what airlines choose to do, but I'm always asked to show my passport when I'm getting on an international flight to leave the USA (and I'm a U.S. citizen).

For all I know, they just do this to avoid the problem of their passenger not being admitted at the other end. But as a practical matter, I do have to show a passport (for a public flight, anyway).

I’m out of the US right now and I had to present my passport (or passport number) three times before I could board: once while checking in online^, a scan when dropping my bag, and then a third time in person when boarding the aircraft.

^ (and I’m pretty sure entering my number at checkin is the critical one that’s matched against any important lists, right?)

It is required when leaving the Schengen area. They like to know when people are leaving so that they know who is overstaying and who isn't.

The airlines want to see the passport too, but every time I've left the Schengen area (Germany, Netherlands, and Iceland), the national authority for that country checks my passport and stamps it with an exit stamp showing the date, time, and airport of departure.

That doesn't happen when leaving the United States: just the airlines want to see the passport to make sure you won't be immediately rejected at the destination.

We don't know the full extent of Ghosn's passport collection. I briefly had two working U.S. passports a while ago because of a processing glitch. It wouldn't surprise me if a real Player like Ghosn had double French passports and more, as a matter of course.

In the UK you can legally hold two working passports. People do this when they need to travel to countries which mutually prevent you entering if you have a stamp from the other (Israel and some middle eastern countries being the common example).

Same in germany, also if you travel often one passport might be stuck in the visa application process for another trip.

Same in Norway according to my ex boss. He used to have two for exactly such a reason.

The US as well, if I remember correctly. Can't find it on the State Dept. website at the moment.

Yes - you have to have a valid reason for it and they will issue you a second passport of short (usually 2 year validity).

Usually this valid reason boils down to having to submit your passport frequently for visas (eg. Brazil) such that it would impact your ability to travel internationally for other business.

It is perfectly legal in France to have several passports at the same time. It is encouraged in fact for frequent travelers.

You can legally hold two valid US passports now, without processing glitches. The second one only gets four years validity, though.

> while the Japanese government has all three of one’s passports pretty much requires breaking lots of laws in at least three countries. (Likely more, e.g. money laundering.)

Man, I doubt anything of that was involved. People get paperless in and out of countries despite all of that security theatre every day.

It's not a secret that private flight immigration and security is a joke.

AFAIK Martha Stewart wasn’t found guilty of SEC violations but rather the specious “lying to the FBI”.

Also conspiracy and obstruction of an agency proceeding. She settled with the SEC on civil charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart#Sentence

At least some of that (the nebulous obstruction of agency proceeding) relies or stems from the “lying” part.

Martha Stewart in fact did not do any type of illegal financial transaction. After the Fed's case fell apart (that even if what they alleged what happened was true, it was not prosecutable) they got her for "lying" to them when she voluntary met with them to explain her trades. Fun fact is that the expert witness they used to show she lied to them was later charged with perjury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/weekinreview/ideas-trends...

> Not particularly well informed on this

This will help you understand everything about Ghosn case.

"Debito.org’s stance on the Carlos Ghosn Case, at last: A boardroom coup making “thin legal soup” that might shame Japan’s “hostage justice” judicial system into reform"

https://www.debito.org/?p=15548

Just a quick note on INTERPOL since the original title was misleading. [1]

INTERPOL is basically an information sharing organization that connects police forces in different countries.

It has no authority on of it's own. It's not a police force or law enforcement agency. It can't issue warrants or make arrests.

Basically, they are the holders of a bunch of databases that each country's official poc (national coordinating body - "NCB") can query, enter data into, and receive notices from.

Notices come in different colors. A red notice is an information alert by the host county (Japan in this case) to other national police forces that a subject is wanted for prosecution. Other country's police forces can choose what they want to do with this request. A red notice is not an indication of guilt.

Most red notices are restricted to only law enforcement officials and the subject/public won't even know about them. This makes sense if you are actually trying to capture someone.

You make a notice public for two reasons.

1, you need the public's help in finding someone. That's not the case here since we know where the target is.

2, you are making a political point.

I suspect Japan's legal and law enforcement community was seriously embarrassed. If they actually wanted to/thought they could capture him, they would have reached out discreetly to other agencies via a law enforcement only read notice/and or other diplomatic means.

INTERPOL is a fascinating international organization and it's interesting to watch all the geopolitics play out.

[1] source: occasionally work with INTERPOL as a consultant/subject matter expert

> Other country's police forces can choose what they want to do with this request

Practically, this notice restricts Ghosn's travel to several countries. It does nothing to him in Lebanon, and is unlikely to change much in France.

I feel bad for anyone booking a private jet from Lebanon to France for the next while.

Plenty risk of an unscheduled diplomatic lunch:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide...

Yeah, flying private is terrible.

Looks like you could fly well enough outside anyone else's airspace from Lebanon to France. The one tight spot being the gap between Malta and Tunisia.

Maybe get to Reunion and then blend in on a domestic flight back to the mainland.

It's one of the methods to broadcast that Japan is looking to prosecute Ghosn. The red notice doesn't restrict travel, it aids in awareness. It's an important distinction.

There are lots of ways to restrict travel that don't involve public red notices.

The red notice can help build a case for detention by a third party, but again, it wouldn't have to be public to do that.

Finally, a third party country has to make a lot of practical political and legal decisions around a red notice hit.

1 - do you/can you legally detain, and on what grounds?

2 - do you notify the originating country?

3 - do you start extradition to Japan/Japanese authority, or do you deny entry, or do you deport?

Red notices are not uniformly enforced. Assuming a country actually supports action on red notices at all, each country will make it's own decision based on each individual case.

See the historical US treatment of Russian origin red notices.

>It has no authority on of it's own.

Not directly but they can still shake some trees and see what falls out if so inclined. They also have some power to make stuff happen on short notice. Eg interpol laissez-passer

I find this whole series of events to be fascinating. I'm also very interested in what Ghosn has to say on the 8th. I have only read briefly on Japan's prison system and from what I understand it assumes guilt.

It's hard to infer what might have happened. Leading up to his arrest in Japan there were mentions that he had treated his co-officers in a "un-Japanese" way and was suspected to have lead to his being targeted to be removed.

It's also interesting how this how debacle has caused Nissan to suffer. It really seems like Nissan was about to turn around their design and car interiors (the new Maxima, Altima, Sentra, and Versa have gotten big boosts) and then this hits them hard.

I hope Nissan pulls through and I hope the truth about Ghosn comes out.

>I hope the truth about Ghosn comes out.

It's been reported he oversaw accounting irregularities regarding his compensation i.e. fancy embezzelment with Nissan which is why there is a warrant for his arrest.

Having just read his wikipedia, it seems this goes very much deeper than treating someone in an "un-Japanese" way.

>Nissan was paying all or some of the costs at some amount of US$18 million for residences used by Ghosn in Rio de Janeiro, Beirut, Paris and Amsterdam, and that Ghosn charged family vacation expenses to the company.

And the list goes on and on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn#Arrest_in_Tokyo_a...

>Nissan compliance auditors began trying to track Zi-A activity in 2014 but were stymied at first by the chain of shell companies used in Zi-A investments.

>Nissan funds were used to purchase Ghosn's Paris apartment in 2005, and Zi-A funds were used to purchase his $5 million beachfront Rio apartment in 2012 and his Beirut mansion, which, with renovations, cost over $15 million.

>In addition, to avoid reporting the full amount of his compensation in Nissan financials, as required by Japanese law beginning in 2010, Ghosn had Kelly structure complicated deferred payment plans which went unreported under an aggressive interpretation of the disclosure rules which Nissan's outside auditors had not signed off on, and which totaled around $80 million at the time of his arrest eight years later.

He's just your typical CEO criminal and should be in a cell next to murderers and drug kingpins.

Nissan stock in 2018 - $21. Today - $11.67.

The "Investigations in other countries" bit is also a problem for the "un-Japanese" theory, too. France and the US SEC went after him, as well.

The business with the SEC was entirely reasonable — and he has settled with them. It would make a lot of sense to handle this dispute in the boardroom, first. It makes plenty of sense to handle this with the SEC or a similar regulatory agency.

It is much less defensible to invite the national news media to his arrest, lock the man up without access to his lawyers for months on end, and then go on a fishing expedition to find some reason to justify the arrest after the fact. Besides the routine abrogation of justice in Japan, of which this is only a minor instance, this practice takes a situation which might risk appearing corrupt and politically motivated, and doubles down on the politics and the appearance of corruption.

The point is, he committed serious enough offenses to get a ten year ban from running a public company in the US for a decade.

The SEC is unlikely to have gone after him just because he didn't act sufficiently Japanese.

He most certainly was not banned from running a public company in the US for a decade because of his offenses. He agreed not to run any companies that reported to the SEC, and the SEC agreed to drop its case.

(And if you believe that settling a case without admitting guilt is the same as guilt, I would hate to see what you think of criminal plea bargains in the US, which are much more common, and many of which are far worse abrogations of justice.)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/sec-accus...

> Ghosn was barred from serving as a director or officer of a public company for 10 years, while Kelly agreed to a five-year ban.

> Nissan, Ghosn and Kelly ... all resolved the cases without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

You continue to miss the point.

At the start of the thread, it's stated "Ghosn is really being persecuted for being a non-Japanese CEO of a Japanese company".

The SEC and French law enforcement are both unlikely to be motivated by this claimed bias.

There are plenty of settlements with "no one admits wrongdoing" where there was clear wrongdoing; it just saves everyone involved a costly legal battle, and some face.

The SEC began its investigation in late January, after the arrest and months-long fishing expeditions by Japanese prosectors (and two or three different announcements about crimes they had found, the latter of which dismissed the earlier theories).

The Japanese prosecution is easily 100% political; any actual crimes they found are pure coincidence. As for myself, I am much more upset by a corrupt and politicized judiciary in charge of a major first-world nation than I am by dubious business deals, just one case of the many they will handle.

(And further note that Ghosn was while still in jail in Japan while he settled with the SEC, with very little access to his lawyers... and, of course, no trial date set, because who needs a "right to a speedy trial" anyway?)

Isn’t this fairly typical for Japanese corporations, that senior management might have their home paid for by the company?

There are smells coming from both sides of this dispute.

> Isn’t this fairly typical for Japanese corporations, that senior management might have their home paid for by the company?

There are also the funds paid to companies affiliated with his wife and son. Both Nissan and Renault’s Boards found these surprising, which is ultimately why he lost the latter’s support.

There are smells on both sides. The simplest explanation is Ghosn is dirty and the Japanese criminal justice system is biased. The fact that the former is now an international fugitive somewhat simplifies his criminality in most jurisdictions.

No, not at all. Japan has some of the most egalitarian CEO pay in developed countries.

Ghosn exploited his position and muddied waters. He paid himself 3 CEO salaries and yet continuously claimed to be under paid.

To claim Nissan, an entity Ghosn controlled, was somehow equally as guilty is what-about-ism.

You seem to basically be saying that we should consider Ghosn to be guilty of crimes because he was an outsider whose attitude wasn't sufficiently Japanese. To me this seems to reinforce his position, rather than yours.

I said nothing of the sort, please do not troll on hacker news.

It certainly wasn't what-about-ism, rather that I suspect the prosecution is politically and/or commercially motivated.

The CEO to rank and file pay disparity in Japanese companies has traditionally been much lower than in Western corporations, and the compensation of non-Japanese executives (of which there have been very few) has rankled the Japanese in the past. Paying for a condo in Tokyo is one thing, beach houses in Rio is another, this would be outrageous by Japanese standards if true.

Indeed, it is also perfectly possible for the Japanese legal system to have serious issues [1] and Ghosn to have far from clean hands.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Japan#Judicial...

Right. He’s just mad the Japanese court system doesn’t throw anyone a bone. Even rich folk.

Any court system that assumes guilt is a bullshit one. The Japanese legal system seems to be designed to get people to admit guilt so the process ends quickly. That's a garbage-fire of a legal system.

"presumption of innocence until proven guilty" is a Human Right (article 11 of https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)

It would be more fair to say "the Japanese court system presumes guilt and treats everyone like inhuman garbage, even rich folk."

There was a fun incident in the UN where an ambassador from Japan made a remark that Japan's justice system was modern and exemplary. Everyone in the room just laughed at him. (He got upset, and told everyone to shut up, and then got fired for his outburst.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYfHWsWJhtg

_Death Note_ is a documentary.

For me the sentences such as:

Nissan was paying all or some of the costs at some amount of US$18 million for residences used by Ghosn in Rio de Janeiro, Beirut, Paris and Amsterdam, and Ghosn charged family vacation expenses to the company

sound like pure BS ... that the CEO of a company that sells 10 million cars per year charged a family vacation ... none of us are aware of what his contract states, what he was promised etc.

Jumping on the "criminal CEO" bandwagon is tiring stuff. MY hat off to Mr. Gosh, not only did he manage well three gigantic companies, he managed himself just as well, skipped the BS charges and got himself out of Japan. That's a genius manager right there.

And he did all of that in a non-violent way, which makes the whole case about prosecution and jail (with guilt implied, as customary in Japan) absurd.

Think he’ll get another manga but this time about his escape?

>>Nissan was paying all or some of the costs at some amount of US$18 million for residences used by Ghosn in Rio de Janeiro, Beirut, Paris and Amsterdam, and that Ghosn charged family vacation expenses to the company.

>And the list goes on and on...

As if that specific item above is something special? Tons of execs do just the same, and nobody bats an eye.

Some people at Nissan/Japan wanted to get the "outsider"...

This vs WeWork founder taking out loans from We buying properties and leasing them back to WeWork.

Posting the share price at the end of your post is reasonable, sure. But to be fair to Ghosn, much of Nissan's success in the past 20 years can be attributed to him - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46321097

Doesn't excuse any alleged crimes, but I didn't think it was entirely fair to surmise his career at Nissan with a reference to today's share price. Despite all that's written about CEOs, salaries, and correlated efficacy...

I checked other automakers’ stock prices and didn’t see anything like this Nissan dip since 2018. It seems likely he is to blame for the poor performance. Yes he may have been responsible for some of the company’s success but that doesn’t allow him to skim 100s of millions of dollars from the top. He was more than adequately compensated already.

Also it is hard to say how much he was responsible for Nissan’s turnaround. In reading his wiki I kept seeing things that I knew took lots of hard work from people below him yet it is always attributed to the CEO.

I’m somewhat involved in the automotive industry, and a lot of insiders consider what happened to Ghosn as being a coup by Japanese executives who detested him being an outsider. If this is the case, they really did him dirty and I support him fleeing the country.

The whole 'gaijin' side-story is hard to ignore, given all that's written in the western press about Japan, and it's attitude towards migrants. But there's surely no smoke without fire in a case like this, because it should be fairly easy to prove some degree of innocence in crimes of this nature.

It has been interesting to gain a little insight into how pernicious the Japanese judiciary can be though.

The story of the artist Megumi Igarashi is especially funny (yet also disturbingly sexist)...

Ghosn though, is far from funny. But fleeing the country is a pretty sketchy response to a criminal charge.

>But fleeing the country is a pretty sketchy response to a criminal charge.

He was facing a 20 year prison sentence in a country with a 99.7% conviction rate. The trial was to take place later this year. He's 65 years old. I have no idea whether he's guilty of the charges but the reality of the situation he faced was that his only two choices were flee now or likely spend the rest of his life in prison.

Japanese conviction rates exceed 99%, he's 65 years old and facing 20 years. It's not really that surprising he fled, I have a hard time believing that any of us in a similar circumstance and with similar means wouldn't do the same. He was faced with an A | B choice. A: Stay and die in prison. B: Flee and maybe not get caught for a hot minute, eventually get caught, die in prison.

yeah, right, poor rich man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn#Arrest_in_Tokyo_a...

> In September, in one of the first legal accords of the saga, Ghosn settled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over claims of failing to disclose more than $140 million in pay to him from Nissan. He was fined $1 million while Nissan was fined $15 million and Greg Kelly $100,000. He is barred from serving as a director or officer of a public company for ten years and Kelly for five years

Even in the US he was caught.

He used company funds for himself. It's pretty clear. If an average man would have done that he would have been paying it already, but he is a rich man so he could escape.

The truth about Ghosn is that he was committing fraud while living in a country that also happens to have an awful judicial system. There isn't a virtuous side in this conflict, there's just two shady entities working against one another.

I think the part that makes it a little more unambiguous is that Renault and the French government definitely gave him much more of the benefit of the doubt, but ultimately decided it was untenable to act like he wasn't up to financial shenanigans. But at the same time, I think France has already said they wouldn't extradite him. That's where I think the thing goes muddy, that he really has French friends even if he also got ousted from the Renault side as well.

Part of me thinks there is a chance that maybe this kind of financial misdeed is not all too uncommon, and it may indeed be a case of "it's not a problem unless you're a problem." but given the scope of money and questionable expenses already tied to him, it doesn't seem like fabrication or embellishment is needed.

I feel like what I get from this story is, if you were looking to get Carlos Ghosn out, you didn't have too look too hard.

France does not extradite its own citizens. By saying that they wouldn't extradite him they have just repeated the legal position.

They must be relieved that he didn't fly to France as that would have been quite embarrassing for them. He probably calculated that he was safest in Lebanon, though.

> France does not extradite its own citizens. By saying that they wouldn't extradite him they have just repeated the legal position.

Inconsequential nitpick: I'm not even sure this is a position formalized by anything, IIRC it is more like a tradition, although a very consistent one. But there have been a few exceptions, btw, like Aurore Martin extradited to Spain while Manuel Valls was the minister of interior, but this was in the context of a European arrest warrant (however, this was for a political issue, so it could have been easily blocked by the executive instead of authorized).

It's actually French law, the exception being the European arrest warrant as you mention (and that only applies if the alleged offence is also an offence in France). Depending on the circumstances the person may face trial in France, though.

France honores EU arrest warrants, as requested by European treaties.

It's not just a tradition but more of a non-starter kind of thing as there is no process or framework in the first place. Countries that extradite their own citizens have jurisprudence, procedures and institutions to that effect.

European arrest warrants are different in that they operate under the idea of European citizenship, and that member countries have compatible and comparable legal frameworks. Also the ultimate authority is with the ECJ and ECHR, same as if the accused was tried locally.

> however, this was for a political issue, so it could have been easily blocked by the executive instead of authorized

As I understand it, the executive typically has the power to decide whether an (actual, international) extradition should go forward or not after the judiciary has decided that someone _can_ be extradited. After all, it's a matter of international relations.

But European arrest warrants are different, precisely because relations between member countries are not a matter of executive power. Instead, that authority lies in European institutions. In this case, either government would have had to refer to the ECJ if they did not agree.

I just don't see their upcoming success. They haven't kept pace with the industry in technology, their styling has not just been behind, but dated from release. They killed off their hero franchises. They've re-segmented almost every one of the line, leaving brand fans and previous buyers without upgrade paths.

- Pathfinder 4x4, a capable cult loved offroader, now a luxury SUV

- Navara Utility vehicle, industry and consumer favorite - Now a gigantic Americanized "truck" unwanted by other markets, and better served in America by local manufacturers

- Skyline, middle market sports Car variants, inspired a generation of enthusiasts, now pedestrian cars on a slow platform, and an entirely separate franchise of unaffordable supercars

- Silvia affordable sports cars - as above, but with no replacement

- Stagea sports family wagon - no replacement

- Maxima/Pintara/Ciefro/Laurel affordable family cars - Somehow now their flagship aimed at people who would rather a Eurocar

Their only line I think will continue to be successful is the Leaf. But I suspect EVs are going to be getting pretty competitive over the next decade.

It would be sad to see them go, but I also don't think we'll be missing out on anything from their future if now was when they died.

This is from a Nissan fanboy. I have had 7 Nissans. At one point I had a Nissan to tow my Nissan to go race other Nissans. I've downsized, and now have just the one car and some bicycles.

> They haven't kept pace with the industry in technology

This is among the reasons Ghosn was proposing a merger: the alliance was supposed to help them share R&D costs, particularly on electric vehicles, but they weren't doing nearly enough on that front.

They did put a Cummins in the Titan XD, which will give that truck line a sales boost, despite the new design being ugly as hell.

That's interesting! In Australia, the Navara that the Titan was borne from was always a 4 cylinder turbo diesel. Other markets using the smaller turbo diesels is what inspired Cummins to bring out their 4 cylinder crate motor in the US for project 4x4 swaps. The idea is they're a great alternative to petrol V8s and a much more efficient and lightweight package than a Cummins 6 or 8. You can get all the torque you could ever want for 4x4 out of a 2.5 litre turbo diesel, and they'll fit in anything. I suspect the Titan is more aimed at towing though, so no surprise they've got the bigger Cummins.

> Their only line I think will continue to be successful is the Leaf.

The new Leaf is arguably over priced, spec/price wise.

I found the comments here interesting/insightful:

https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/eip9cr/japanese_medi...

This subreddit has been following this case obsessively ever since it started. It's a must read for anyone interested in this case.

> Reuters on Thursday quoted sources close to Mr Ghosn as saying he decided to flee after finding out his trial had been delayed until April 2021.

If I'm on his jury for charges related to fleeing I'd tend to give him a pass for this reason. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Good to see that this is being taken seriously, both by Turkey and Interpol. Japan's justice system is flawed but certainly not to the degree where one should presume that the case against him is entirely groundless.

Why would France not extradite him if he arrives in the country? Seems really dodgy from their part, like another Polanski case.

France doesn't extradite its nationals.

Fascinating- I'd go watch the movie. Rags to Riches Hero becoming too successful- targeted by Big Foreign Govt on cooked up charges escaping persecution and going home to safety.

Red notice is different from an arrest warrant.

FWIW Lebanon is very likely to ignore it.

How does he have a Japanese and other passports? I thought Japan does not recognize multiple citizenships...

Finally, he'll be held accountable for those JATCO transmissions.

“Interpol issues a warrant for Carlos Ghosn's arrest”

Interpol is neither a police force nor a court of law, and does not have the power to issue warrants.

There's a great Stuff You Should Know podcast episode on Interpol. As you point out, they're not a police force. They're an international organization designed to help connect police forces together. They know who to call and have translation services, etc.

A more apt description is that Interpol issued a notice stating that Japan wants this guy.

> A more apt description is that Interpol issued a notice stating that Japan wants this guy.

Current article title is "Carlos Ghosn: Interpol issues 'red notice' for Nissan ex-boss's arrest"

ah man... i always thought that interpol was the more classy version of mi6.

Yes, whereas e.g. European Arrest Warrants are serious business (because unlike the UN, the EU has teeth).

Except Interpol isn’t part of UN, so whether UN has teeth or not is pretty much irrelevant here.

Oh, sorry, you're quite right. I meant to check that first.

And now Interpol is increasingly used by suspect regimes (not including Japan in that!, but I would include China or Russia, Saudi Arabia) against their political rivals. Because of China's actions, I think Interpol lost a lot of credibility.

I'll admit to embellishing the title a little to make it somewhat easier to parse. I'd expect a 'Red Notice' from Interpol would have the weight of a warrant in a good number of countries though. At least as much authority to ensure an active search and detention. If he's ever found, of course.

The guidelines specifically ask you not to do this.

Updated.

Interpol notices don't really have authority. They can cause an organisation that does have authority, like a national police force, to choose to search for and detain someone.

Having a red notice issued against you is a real pain in the ass:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/03/the-scourge-of-the-red-...

It's not an arrest warrant, but countries tend to just blindly trust them and they percolate down to street-level police automatically. Yeah, they chose to trust them in the first place, but there's often no case-by-case judgement happening until after the target has been detained.

Lebanon doesn't have an extradition agreement with Japan, so the 'red notice' won't have much effect unless Ghosn sets foot in a country which does...

Also France said they don't extradite their citizens, so he'd be safe there as well (but he's facing charges for a different issue in France).

He is not currently facing charges in France, they are investigating.

He's also settled his cases with the SEC.

An agreement just facilitates things.

You can still be extradited without one.

But the odds are low if the country has an overall attitude not to ever extradite their own citizens.

Article title: Carlos Ghosn: Interpol issues 'red notice' for Nissan ex-boss's arrest

Note: submission title has been updated since this comment was made:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21935806

Good on him for escaping. The japanese judicial system is an outright farce and they deserve to be humiliated on the world stage.

This currently looks like the view the western media is coalescing on. But look at country's relationship with crime. It's almost seen as a model in this regard.

How sure are you about the defendant's innocence?

I lived in Japan for several years so I'm quite aware of the upsides of that country, and more aware than most of its dark and downsides.

Ghosn is undoubtedly guilty of something, but he wasn't arrested (and subsequently rearrested a half dozen times on the same charge) because of his culpability. It was a Japan Inc. hatchet job through and through.

Bottom line is that he was facing a kangaroo court and a judicial system with a 99% conviction rate. Everybody deserves better than that.

Anyone else getting "An error occurred during a connection to www.bbc.co.uk. PR_END_OF_FILE_ERROR" when trying to access BBC News? This in under Firefox on Linux but also cannot access it in Chromium.

Nothing wrong on safari iPad

Huh, it was my VPN (PIA). Does anyone know why this would happen? I tried a few different servers.

I get the same issue using NordVPN; not sure why.

EDIT: Are you aware that you're likely using exit nodes that are acquired through a botnet by using NordVPN? They're related with Oxygenlabs.

editted for correctness. My first statement was false. My apologies. https://medium.com/@derek./how-is-nordvpn-unblocking-disney-...

Oldpost: ~~Are you aware of the possibility that you're an exit node for the related NordVPN services?~~

Well now I am. I got a 3 year subscription through them until 2021, I’ll probably get PIA afterwards. I’m guessing this is a NordVPN specific thing?

To clear up what hetspookjee said: no one is suggesting that nordvpn is routing traffic through its own users, and this would be trivial to detect. They may be using botnets along the lines of Hola though.

Tihs is typical in a lot of media sites anyway, I guess they have some rules per IP/hits, which using a VPN which you share your IP with a lot of other people, puts you on the blacklist.

I guess it's not good for ads/tracking, hence the blocking too

[EDIT: The comment below is misguided. The BBC nowadays does indeed show ads, as several people pointed out. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have the ads blocked, and can recommend others install uBlock Origin as well.]

For the record, BBC news site has never had any ads. The content is fully paid for and financed by the British public through TV licensing fees. And they go the extra mile to not even appear promoting any products or companies in their reporting ("other companies doing X exist".)

OTOH, they do have a ton of trackers and other spy technology on their site. My uBlock Origin shows six blocked tracking domains. So even though BBC is not profiting from dislaying ads to visitors, they are still gifting their behaviour data to American tracking companies for free.

They show ads to visitors from outside the uk

The BBC website absolutely does serve ads outside the UK, it's serving them right now:

https://imgur.com/a/acF8BqB

I open up bbc.com and I am immediately shown several ads. I have a banner ad for Geico shown across the top of the page.

BBC is made up of several entities and only some of them are publicly funded. Other parts, such as the BBC world news and several of the BBC’s online sites, are indeed for-profit companies that run ads [1]:

> Unlike the BBC's domestic channels, BBC World News is owned and operated by BBC Global News Ltd., part of the BBC's commercial group of companies, and is funded by subscription and advertising revenues, and not by the United Kingdom television licence.

And even the ones that are publicly funded still show ads to visitors from outside the UK [2]:

>We've introduced advertising to visitors outside of the UK because the new revenue created will allow us to further improve our journalism, our programmes and our website in the years ahead.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_News

2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/

Thank you, I stand corrected.

I am pretty sure it didn't use to be like this. BBC was one of the few sites that didn't show ads even without ad blocker.

BBC tends to be hostile to any VPNs from what I've noticed, likely to ward off fraudulent accounts accessing live television without paying for the appropriate license.

Russia uses Interpol to go after its critics like Bill Browder so I'm not sure how to take this. As someone with no dog in the fight, from everything I read it seemed like Japan turned against Ghosn because he made too many cuts to Nissan which was ran more like a government owned enterprise. Japan's judicial system also seems less than fair, especially to outsiders. I don't think anyone on either side of this story looks clean.

Excellent points here! Very likely scenario.

I have yet to see any major achievement that did not "break" law in some way. Remember laws are made for "regular" boring folks to keep them in line. They cannot accommodate massive radical reorganizations. On the other hand the Japanese sure look like they wanted to make a scapegoat and dish out exemplary punishment.

We all break innumerable laws everyday, the goal for the government is to make everything illegal so that when you start making waves, they can put a magnifying glass on your life to throw the book at you. You should have a lot of money before you try and change things, so you can defend yourself through the never ending lawsuits. Look at any major corporation’s quarterly filing and see how many lawsuits they are mired in at once.

It is not as much the government but your fellow citizen that requires laws. Even a small percentage of them can make your life miserable.

Laws are complicated because behaviors can be varied and circumstances complex: someone getting sick and peeing on your yard is different from someone going potty in your backyard every day ... etc

long story short, societies need laws, people themselves don't fully understand the implications of the laws. People make the laws in the end, it is just inconvenient when most people have different opinions than one particular individual.

> the goal for the government is to make everything illegal

I've heard this line before, but never heard any evidence supporting it.

I work with government regulators in the US regularly in my day job, at the local, state, and federal level. I have never gotten the impression that they are trying to hoard infractions on people that they can later use to strong-arm compliance.

Rather, modulo some personality issues, the vast majority government officials I have ever worked with seem to be interested in achieving the best result for the people in the jurisdiction they oversee, and they tend to take "the will of the people" as expressed in elections and public forums very seriously - if that means letting technical infractions slide, that's what they do.

In fact, a lot of times, the people running the government (again, in my particular areas of experience) have expressed that they wish the laws or regulations they are tasked with enforcing were less onerous, but they know it won't change because the people don't want it to.

Of course, it could be different on the criminal justice side of things.

Could you cite some examples that support your accusation?

I don’t have the time to dig up a hodge podge of article links. It’s more of a philosophical argument.

As a recent example, I read this book “The Economist’s Hour” which is a left-wing critique of free markets https://www.amazon.com/Economists-Hour-Prophets-Markets-Frac...

It’s thrust is that free markets are good, but need to be regulated by the government to make them fair. I disagree with many of its conclusions, but I did appreciate the numerous examples of regulatory overreach the author provided to show how it can be taken too far. The sections on trucking and the airline industry were particularly illuminating.

For example, airline companies were licensed by 1938 and no other airlines were allowed to be created until deregulation in the Carter administration. Airlines (and many other industries) would go hat-in-hand to regulators begging them to solve all of their problems - prices, competition, union issues, and on and on. As intra-state flying wasn’t regulated by the feds but inter-state was, it became cheaper to fly within a state by over 50% than if you crossed a state border.

You should have a lot of money before you try and change things, so you can defend yourself through the never ending lawsuits.

Sounds like why Trump has had everything thrown at him for the past 3 years

Reply on news.ycombinator.com