Sign in / up

back to article Uh, Obama? Did you miss a zero or two off Samsung's Chinese supplier 'fib' settlement?

Samsung Electronics America has agreed to settle with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) over claims the company lied about where its products were made. The DoJ accused Sammy of violating the Trade Agreements Act, which requires gear purchased by the government be sourced either directly from US manufacturers or countries …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Charles Manning

    Limited by the law

    These are fines, not civil damages. As such the amounts cannot be set on a whim.

    The amounts specified probably were reasonable for other cases, but are out of whack when applied here.

    0 3 Reply
    1. Richard 12 Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Limited by the law

      Depends on the value of the actual contracts, which were not stated.

      It doesn't matter how big the overall company is, what matters is the size of the alleged fraud.

      It's not reasonable to fine a few billion over a fraud of a few thousand, just because the parent company is huge.

      1 0 Reply
    2. dan1980
      Reply Icon

      Re: Limited by the law

      Isn't it an out-of-court settlement and thus not a 'fine'? (And therefore the amount presumably can be set to whatever the parties agree to.)

      I don't understand why it was settled though as $2.3m is not only nothing for Samsung - it's nothing for the Government as well. Surely the liabilities would be set far higher if this was decided in court? Imagine the Government wants to replace the phones - $2.3m would only cover a couple of thousand devices (depending on exactly what they provided).

      2 0 Reply
  2. James 51

    The size of the fine needs to be a lot larger than any profit made otherwise it's just the cost of doing business. But the article doesn't state the size of the contracts or an estimate of Samsung's profits on them.

    4 0 Reply
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    To all those concerned that the amount is small have you thought about how many other suppliers to the US government also source their goods from China. If the amount was larger Samsung would most likely call foul and insist all the other suppliers be examined - not a good outcome for the DoJ.

    1 0 Reply
    1. Peter 39
      Reply Icon

      ... maybe

      Samsung might indeed complain (probably would, given past performance). But DoJ would probably use its discretion and decline to do so.

      It's not as though Samsung doesn't have an established legal record of lies and thievery.

      0 2 Reply
    2. Technological Viking
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      Sourced from China

      The Feds know that a lot of what they purchase is of questionable origin, but they'll only do anything about it when it starts to become embarrassing. However, this regulatory practice is particularly awkward because Samsung (or whoever) manufactures these things in China because it costs them less money, and they can reduce the price that they sell the items for. So, logically, the Feds get upset over paying less, and then get more money back from the company, using the taxpayer dollars to pay for the court process until a deal is struck. *But*, with such a low total, I think this winds up being some sort of clumsy, tail-eating wash that just kind of evaporates.

      1 0 Reply
  4. Alister

    I guess the US Government doesn't use Cisco Catalyst switches and routers then, AFAIK they are (or were) all manufactured in China.

    0 0 Reply
    1. Peter Simpson 1
      Reply Icon
      Happy

      The real ones or the counterfeit ones?

      1 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like