You say that as if all bureaucracies didn't mis-manage - despite daily (at least) reminders right here on the Reg that it's a worldwide epidemic, and has been for all memory.
Methinks your partisanship is blinding you to essential truth.
The US State Department has until 1 December to get its paperwork in order and show how it wishes to proceed in attempting to extradite ex-Autonomy boss Mike Lynch to face charges. According to the federal court filing system, at a 15-minute hearing on 13 November in a San Francisco court, Judge Charles Breyer told lawyers "to …
This post has been deleted by its author
This isn't an issue with Trump - it has been standard US practice to go after foreign businesses/business people who have been labelled "criminals" based on very little evidence, often provided by US companies rather than law enforcement.
Guilt/justice has very little to do with most of these cases - convictions or "plea bargins" tend to be the lesser of two evils rather sound convictions with fair trials.
What was the outcome in the UK trial? I was following the ElReg reporting, but I don't remember a verdict.
Perhaps the US would be wise to see how that turns out before proceeding with its "case" - it might prove embarrassing to prosecute a case where another court found no wrongdoing.
No verdict yet I believe. Given reporting (in the Reg and others, as well as the specialised legal press) it looked more likely than not that Lynch will not be hauled over the coals on the charges that HP levelled, and one assumes this will give him some confidence (sans a Johnson spaff up to placate the US) to put two fingers up at an extradition request.
It seems that the verdict from a number of lawyers reviewing the material and testimony (many wishing they had been lucky enough to get the briefs) that a verdict of "plagues on both your houses" would be appropriate for HP and Lynch.
Isn't the UK case still ongoing? Though Reg reportage seems to have dried up these last couple of months (attention span of a ****)?
The UK case is a civil case, so not entirely comparable to what the 'merkins want. In terms of criminal cases, the UK is pretty-much a free-for-all for serious fraudsters provided you feed the system. Our so-called Serious Fraud Office is routinely out-lawyered by anyone with real money and 'Establishment' connections. And in case of any doubt, the Attorney General (our MP Geoffrey Cox) can block them indefinitely even prosecuting a case without giving any reason, as he's still doing in for example this case.
>>> it might prove embarrassing to prosecute a case where another court found no wrongdoing.
There are many instances of uk.gov shipping perfectly innocent (under UK law) citizens off to the US when ordered to do so by a US court. It's all about sovereignty and a special relationship. Apparently.
The UK trial is a civil case by HP against Lynch whereas the case the DoJ wish to bring is a criminal caase. T eDoJ will presumeably ssay that the fact that someone has started a civil case for damages has no significance on their pursuit of a criminal case but it would seem sensible to wait until the outcome of the civl case in the UK. If as at the moment the court decides there was no fraud, that Mike Lynch had no responsibility for fraud it would be a very strong argument in his defence after all a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities and the threshold for a criminal case shoudl be much higher.
What has been shocking is the weakness of HPs case given that Hussein was convicted in a criminal case for fraud in the US. What it throws into highlight is the iherent injusticcs of the US system of deals with witnesses and plea bargaining. The only really significant evidence against Hussein was the statements of a US employee who admitted fraud he claims at Husseisns direction, Hussein says not. What is interesting is that Hussein claims he was offered a deal in whcih he would not be prosecuted if he testified against Lynch. When he refused because (he says) in order to do so he would need to lie. He was prosecuted. Given the absence of any real evidenc eof significant fraud in the UK trial there is at leats of much evidence for criminal activity by the US proecutors in seeking to pevert the course of justice as there is in any of the Autonomy managers committing fraud.
My takewaway from this is that the UK should not extradite anyone to the US on fraud charges as they are unlikely to receive a fair trial.
>Perhaps the US would be wise to see how that turns out before proceeding with its "case" - it might prove embarrassing to prosecute a case where another court found no wrongdoing.
Especially as in this civil case it is "the balance of probabilities" as opposed to a criminal case which has the bar set far higher at the level of "beyond reasonable doubt".
'Wire Fraud' is a bogus catch-all law like Article 58.
Anyway, if a multinational has dealings in say 60 countries, can each country have proceedings, leading to sentences, leading to $5billion fines and 750 year jail times simultaneously or is that just the pathetic USA ?
The more life proceeds and the more they bomb little countries a la Hillary, Bush, Cheney, etc., and the more they presume to scoop up foreign dissidents such as Assange, or hackers like Love, from around the world. the more they become the USSR in it's morbid decline, and the utter reason the cultured world should ignore these barbarians and proceed without reference to them.
The two are accused of falsely inflating the true value of Autonomy's business by fiddling revenue reporting, misleading auditors and market analysts.
Is it being suggested that lying, fudging numbers, etc,etc,etc are illegal practices? Has anyone considered the probable affect of that philosophy on the world's economy? Not to mention the future of the world's political elites.
(I've been following the Trump impeachment hearings. I am rapidly concluding that the witnesses are the only people in the room that shouldn't be locked up.)
Doesn't Double Jeopardy apply here?.
I'm not saying that I agree with what he may or may not have done but chasing the same guy in 2 different countries for the same thing smacks of corporate bullying.
If I was the UK judge, I would be asking HP to prove he cost them £5bn, on that test alone, I suspect it would be not guilty.
No, double jeaopardy doesn't apply here - the UK case is a civil case, the US one is a criminal one.
However if HP loses the civil case, it'll be an embarrassing situation for them to be in, I'm sure. But it won't make much odds - US prosecutors tend to load up as many charges as possible to come to as many years in jail as possible and then offer a plea deal that is what they actually were aiming for in the first place, meaning that if you try and plead not guilty and you get convicted on just one or two of the charges, you end up doing more jail time than the original plea deal.
I see a huge class action suit slowly but steadily brewing.
It's against HP and its CEO+board of directors for dilapidating billions of its shareholders' money.
Something that the suit filed in the UK has already clearly proven was the case, so I don't think it will drag on for too long.
But it will be really fun to watch.
And the lawyers involved (as usual) are going to make so much money.
If I commit a crime in Hong Kong, then I should be prosecuted in Hong Kong and not extradited to China.
People get upset about that
Yet in the UK we kowtow to Washington and extradite our citizens to their inhumane rape prisons. This guy seems like a terrible person and it seems he is rightly in court, but he is rightly in a British court facing a British prison.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019