IMO you do a poor job clearly outlining the transgressions and the legal issues at play. You bounce around phrases like "pay-to-play"but as someone not inside the startup world, I didn't get to the end of your article and understand exactly what he did that was illegal/immoral and the context for how it's harmful to startups. In other words, I know he is accused of doing something wrong but that's as deep as my understanding goes.
Is there additional/secondary fraud against the vendors as well, or is the fraud strictly against the employer in this situation?
(Edit: Board of Director approval is totally hypothetical, I understand that no BoD would ever actually condone such a thing.)
(Edit: Thanks for the clarification, everyone!)
They still can profit massively from that, though, so it's still kind of messy territory.
Per the peer comment, if you don't disclose the conflict, and let the BoD decide what to do in light of that conflict, then you're into the realm of looking like you're hiding something.
A grey area would be more like whether you should offer to leave the meeting while they discuss the proposal.
Of course, the conflict definitely needs to be disclosed!
Are there even laws for this, or is it more about company policies set by the BoD?
In addition to generic criminal laws against fraud and bribery there’s also honest services fraud (which I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this thread) which boils down to depriving someone to whom you owe a duty of the right to your honest services.
It is not unlawful to offer incentives to the company itself in order for them to make a deal. In fact, that's effectively how most deals close (the incentive is usually simply monetary and takes the form of a discount). The problem here is that Kail abused his position as an agent of Netflix to profit at their expense.
Vacations are typically forbidden and would immediately be seen as a bribe. This has led to all kinds of things that are practically vacations but officially are business (such as: conferences in sunny resorts, conferences that take three weeks and so on). Other 'entertainment' can come in many different forms and if not disclosed can get both parties in hot water.
On the whole, pay your own way, do not accept anything that might be construed as a bribe afterwards (so no discount on that shiny item from the company you are deciding to do business with, or not), no gifts over a very low dollar value and in case of doubt clear with legal/linemanager/accountant, transparency is key here, just a failure to disclose can turn an otherwise innocent thing into a potential bribe.
It's really not all that hard to keep your nose clean.
"We'd like to do business with Netflix, hmmm whom should we hire as a consultant, maybe someone at Netflix, surely knows a lot about the kinds of companies that do business with Netflix."
Edit: I agree it's immoral just like how FDA leaders approving drugs then getting hired by the drug industry is immoral, but IIRC the problem is that that's just circumstantial evidence... it's hard to prove that what they did was illegal.
Let Netflix worry about compensating the people who are doing the work.
The problem there is the money comes first. In the case of former regulators, by the time they are hired by the drug company they're no longer a regulator. It's not clear the drug company has anything to gain from hiring them. Yes it's grubby, but it's hard to prove anything. If the money comes up front, that's easy to prove.
> it's hard to prove that what they did was illegal.
Sure, it's a lot of work. That's why we spend money on prosecutors. But they literally _just_ proved that in a way that convinced 12 people "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's certainly not impossible.
It just seems weird to be asking: "is the described scheme illegal?" in an article describing a conviction for the described behavior, unless you're questioning the validity of the judicial process in this case (which itself is a fine thing to do)
"There was just one catch to landing that deal: It had to hire the streaming company’s vice president of IT operations, Michael Kail, as a consultant and an advisor, and pay him with fees and stock options."
That seems pretty clear to me.
“leveraged his status as a leader of the IT community in Silicon Valley to subvert the trust of Netflix and others to profit at their expense”
How did he leverage it in a way that was illegal? I'm not questioning that he did it, I literally don't understand. The diversity of responses here highlights what's confusing. People are saying hiring him at all was the problem? Other responses say that hiring him without Netflix knowing is the problem? It's hard for me to understand the specific transgression.
If you don't understand why that's wrong, I strongly suggest maybe taking a few philosophy or ethics classes.
In short: He was supposed to be acting on behalf of his employer - that's what being an exec means. He instead used the resources of his employer (not his to use, except on behalf of the employer) to dangle a lucrative deal in front of a much smaller company - which, at this point, is akin to exercising quite a bit of force, because these deals can be make-or-break especially for small places.
He then made that deal contingent on enriching himself personally.
That's about as crooked as you can get without inflicting physical harm.
"Michael Kail will be sentenced Oct. 19 in San Jose for taking stock, cash and gifts from tech firms trying to do business with the streaming service."
If nothing else, the "gifts" part makes it clear its personal.
Netskope wanted Netflix to be a customer.
Netflix (or, more specifically, whoever they talked to at Netflix) said "Sure, we will buy your product, but you have to pay Michael Kail."
Nine other companies were told the same thing by Netflix.
The question here is whether Netflix paid Netskope because that was genuinely the right thing for Netflix, or whether Netflix paid Netskope because Michael Kail, who had the authority to make purchases using Netflix's money, personally benefited from the deal. It's a conflict of interest.
Maybe a simpler example, and possibly easier to understand: Suppose Michael Kail, in the evenings after he got home from Netflix, started a company called Kailcorp that provided IT services. Then when he got back to the office, he said, "We should sign a deal with Kailcorp and pay them lots of money." Is it clear why this would be illegal / why he would be profiting at Netflix's expense? (Genuine question - maybe it's not.)
If so, then the only distinction here is that Kail didn't start the company himself, he subverted ten other companies (with real products) into the same thing.
Conflict of interest. Netflix is defrauded because they could have selected a lower cost vendor, or developed the service in-house.
- I work in purchasing approval position for company A
- Company B would like to do business with Company A
- If I say "B, I can get you deal with my employer A, but you need to give me extra money" - this is against every business conduct guideline / contract / terms of employment in every company I worked for, and against law in many jurisdictions.
In case that somehow slipped / you missed it: person was SIMULTANEOUSLY employed by A, while being given money by B to approve things on behalf of A. That's simple kickback / bribery.
It wasn't a morally-dubious but frequently-legal case of "revolving door" where a person does this sequentially. They were approving deals as exec for netflix, and earning money to approve those deals by small companies, at the same time.
When someone hires you to do a job, they hire you to make decisions that are in the best interest of the company. If you are getting paid bribes from suppliers when you buy their services for the company, how can you be trusted to be objective?
I'm curious, what geography do you work in? European country, India, China, USA, Canada? My curiosity is because this seems self evident to me, but it may be cultural thing, and I'm curious to know your cultural background.
There was just one catch to landing that deal: It (the startup hoping to do business with Netflix) had to hire the streaming company’s vice president of IT operations, Michael Kail, as a consultant and an advisor, and pay him with fees and stock options.
That's "pay-to-play"; you don't hire me as an "advisor", you don't get the Netflix contract.