Former Autonomy boss Mike Lynch 'submits himself' for arrest in central London Ex-Autonomy boss Mike Lynch has submitted himself for arrest, a formality required as part of the extradition process initiated by the US Department of Justice. Lynch handed himself in at Charing Cross police station in London this morning before facing a preliminary extradition hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court …
Can anyone explain why communist Russia would want a right-wing government in the UK or America? Surely a left-wing government, with their policies of appeasement and disarmament, would be much more popular since they would either welcome a new openly communist regime with open arms or provide a much easier target because they would be too busy whining and coming up with new ways to waste public money to notice the oncoming red horde.
I have heard lots of LOSERS saying "somebody else made you do it" rather than admit they backed the losing side who lost because more people liked the other side than theirs, and lots of shouting about how unfair it is they lost, and how evil the winners (Trump and Boris) are, but no real evidence that this mysterious "somebody else" really exists - the Russians on facebook didn't make Labour politicians stand in front of the camera and say "we don't care the country voted to leave the EU, f*** the voters" - the politicians did that themselves.
If Labour had not chosen to make themselves the anti-Brexit party they might have stood a chance, if they had stayed loyal to their "core demographic" and given even a tiny sign that the common men and women of the country mattered a damn to the elitists in Westminster any more, they might have stood a chance. Instead they chose to make it clear that all they wanted was to protect their seat on the EU gravy train and that what "the little people" wanted no longer counts for anything in their eyes - and they lost.
"If Labour had not chosen to make themselves the anti-Brexit party"
In what universe were labour the "anti-Brexit party". They were entirely the "sit on the fence party". They still are. They have no clear policy on anything.
"If we were in power we'd be doing it different"
"What would you be doing different?"
"Er, it would be, er something else, maybe this or maybe that"
This shows a lack of understanding about international politics.
If (IF) another nation was influencing the UK to leave the EU, it may have had nothing to do with the UK, and everything to do with the EU - as in, remove one of the biggest members of the EU, reduce its bargaining power, weaken a trading block, improve your own situation.
It may not even be that, it could be targeting other nations that utilise the UK as an entryway into the EU, as a way to diminish their trade and political strength.
There could be lots of reasons why Russia, the USA, China, etc etc would want the UK to exit the EU without the impact on the UK (positive or negative) being even remotely relevant to the decision making. If you think such foreign entities would influence the UK democracy just to get the politicians they want in the UK, then you have a far too UK centric view of international relations.
The average killer hasn't received £500million from an alleged fraudulent transaction.
Bail is set appropriate to the potenial of the accused to skipping it, much to the out of pocketness of Saint Julian's friends. Lynch has enough money to get himself to a country of non-extradition, something few killers have (unless you're backed by the American government and extracted from a country under false immunity).
Although the US is not bound by UK judgements, and additionally something that is unlawful in the US is not necessarily unlawful in the UK.
Well exactly so why is a charge of fraud for the sale of a British company, listed on the London stock exchange, that took place in Britain being pursued in the US?
If the answer is because the laws are different then it should not be tried there at all.
The real answer is of course that it is difficult if not impossible to obtain a fair trial in the US due to normalised prosecutorial abuses and inducements for false testimony by criminal witnesses. This is compounded when the accused is a foreigner. They believe they can obtain a conviction when there is no case to answer within the UK.
This case really highlights the need to change the one sided and unjust extradition treaty with the US.
A new treaty should prevent forum shopping by making it clear trials should be conducted in the country in which the offense is alleged to have occured. That extradition cannot occcur when a prosecuting authourity within either country has declined to prosecute a sthey believe it is against the public interest to do so and the treaty should allow refusal if the evidence presented is insufficient.
"Well everyone is a subset (large admittedly) that does not contain those in favour with the US administration de jour shurely?"
Given how those in and out of favour with the current US administration seem to change on a daily basis, that's a very small group.
Generally, US justice hates anyone that isn't rich and even the rich need very expensive lawyers to tell an unbelievable story to get off...
Hand over Anne Sacoolas first to stand trial in the UK and then we can chat about Mike Lynch, Julian Assange and all the others “wanted” by America. [macjules]That's a reasonable test of the Johnson's balls...something tells me there's a lot of weasel word and hand wringing to come. [robidy]
If both Boris Johnson and the Cabinet Office [that Prime Ministerial fig leaf that dumps a toxic collective responsibility on compliant members rather than executive leaders (cuckolds rather hookers)] do not now start to display that they are in charge of the future as they see it should and could be, rather than being clearly seen to be failing to lead and following foreign scripts as others would have it be, they will never have any stealthy new ammunition and effective virile virtual help from the UKGBNI Cyber Command and Control Sectors.
Just ask DC re: Future Shenanigans for Present Processing with Past Product Management/Established Operations.[that's Dominic Cummings not David Cameron] to know of what will be lost and then supported by A.N.Others, for surely he knows .......
From: "Dominic Cummings" <dmc2.cummings at gmail.com>Subject: Re: Future Shenanigans for Present Processing with Past Product Management/Established Operations.
Date: 3 February 2020 at 17:05:40 GMT
I check email occasionally and with no schedule so please do not rely on this for anything time sensitive.
D
Here is a challenge for the UK government:
Can you negotiate that in return for extraditing Mike Lynch the US agrees to extradite Anne Sacoolas.
Sounds like a fair and equitable trade to me.
The outcome of this negotiation may well set a precedent for what we can expect from a UK/US trade deal...
Cant see the US agreeing to that one.
More like there'll be a clause saying "If a US company takes over a UK company and loses money as a result, we reserve the right to imprison the guys in charge of the british company"
And as further above... where the hell were HP's auditors when they were supposed to be checking this company over?
Its not that hard to fool auditors, especially since I'm sure these were sent in at the last moment to do a rush job - a company with a valuation running to 10 digits and above *before* the decimal point would take many months to fully audit, and HPE was in a hurry.
All these "auditors" did, most likely, is just make sure the total over here was the same as over there and double check some arithmetic. There was no digging into the assumptions or validating the basic numbers - they were just checking the decorations.
A certain hard drive manufacturer in the US, which no longer exists, was at one point claiming a value many times its actual worth, with large "orders" of stuff actually sent *to* itself, consisting of empty boxes. But having those "hard drives in shipment" let them claim way more inventory than they really had. After a while, building bricks were placed in the boxes so they had weight, thus creating truly bricked hard drives, without the drives.
"...They did do the due diligence. Leo didn't read the report...
I've commented pretty much the same here several times over the years.
But it's even worse than just that: The whole things was rushed. There was never going to be time to do even a half-decent audit, but... the then CFO of HP told Leo that the purchase made no sense, that it didn't fit with the HP business and that it was a waste of money. He ignored her - wll, according to her own testaments, he shouted at her and threatened her etc.
And bear in mind that this was the same Leo who announced that he wanted to sell off the HP x86 business because the margins were too tight. Who cares if happened to make a shit-ton of profit due to the sheer volumes of sales? This was a man in charge of a business that he simply did not understand.
This IS a test of sorts. I'd be very, very surprised if the UK court finds Lynch guilty from the reporting here on El Reg alone, which will surely weaken the case for extradition significantly. The question if that is the case, though, is whether our government have the cojones to stand up against the world's largest playground bully.
Remember this is a country that has a "justice" system that is entirely predicated on being punitive.
Not only did Leo want to sell the profitable x86 business but by announcing it ahead of time he spooked conservative corporate buyers and killed said profit before he could offload it. Really Leo should be in the dock over the way he destroyed HP.
"Remember this is a country that has a "justice" system that is entirely predicated on being punitive."
Not surprising, given the massive presence of private, for-profit prisoners whose bottom line depends on an endless supply of new inmates, and whose financial incentives are to create repeat offenders rather than rehabilitated citizens.
If a US company takes over a UK company and loses money as a result
Don't worry - just look at the corporate soverignity provisions in the various US trade agreements and this is a part of it - if a US company loses money as the result of a foreign government decision then that US company has the right to take the country to a special court and sue them for all the money they think they have lost..
Still think a US trade deal is a good idea? I can easily a big tobacco or oil company suing the UK because Government policy limits their ability to make money here..
... well set a precedent for what we can expect from a UK/US trade deal...
Nah!
You don't have to wait that long.
Be absolutely certain that with Johnson and his Tory DHs at the helm, the only thing that the UK can expect from any deal with Trump's US is to get thoroughly screwed over.
It will start with the takeover of the NHS, continue with chlorinated chickens and then go on to GM crops dumped in the UK market.
O.
"Can you negotiate that in return for extraditing Mike Lynch the US agrees to extradite Anne Sacoolas."
It's a neat soundbite, but flawed. Anne Sacoolas has pretty much admitted guilt, was personally responsible for causing the death of another human being, and deliberately abused various international treaties in order to avoid prosecution.
Mike Lynch has admitted nothing, is very close to being acquitted, and even in the extremely unlikely event that he is found guilty, nobody died.
Can you negotiate that in return for extraditing Mike Lynch the US agrees to extradite Anne Sacoolas..
Absolutely not the cases are not at all equivalent. In one case we have a woman who admits to killing a young man and on the other we have a man accused of commiting an offense in Britain, that the British prosecuting authourities declined toprosecute because they thought there was no case and who is currently being tried for the same offense in Britain in a civl trial.
he should not be tried in the US becuase that is tantamount to saying that US courts have jurisdiction in the UK and worse if he is found not have committed fraud in Britain that US courts override British court judgements.
We should say no one will be extradited to the US for any offense until Anne Socolas is handed over. Her case is as clear cut as they come, she admits the offense, someone died as a result. The extradition treaty is worthless if it is not honoured in this case and we should make that clear.
Being a truly Imperial Power, the US will NEVER extradite one of "it's own". An imperial power always sees itself as superior and therefore never subjects those that it sees as "it's own" to justice anywhere else but it's own courts (where, if so desired, the outcome can be controlled). This goes waaaay back - Roman citizens arrested of wrongdoing in the provinces had the right to stand trial in Rome (an incident documented in the Bible, as St. Paul, a Roman citizen, was shipwrecked while being transported back to Rome for trial). The UK kicked off the opium wars in China partly because they refused to turn over British subjects accused of (whatever) to the Chinese.
Any random US citizen, particularly non-white, would be on the next plane out before you could say "extradition". Wife of an intelligence agent? No way, Jose'!
"Sounds like a fair and equitable trade to me."
While the flippant side of me nods, this really isn't fair or equitable. How many actual deaths can be directly attributed to the actions of Mike Lynch. I suspect none.
Let's not forget the USA also has an ongoing request for Julian Assange. Once Anne Sacoolas is in the UK we can discuss who we'll give back.
Is it really a fair trade though?
Lynch is only wanted for alleged accounting differences that caused a multi-billion dollar write down at a US firm, whereas Anne S killed someone and then fled the scene.
Do we really want to go any further down the American path that values corporate money over lives?
The point of a bail amount is that it has to be
a) reasonably possible to pay and
b) painful enough to the defendant to discourage absconding
It is not only reasonable but desirable that bail amounts take into account an individual's capacity. I would expect that for average Joe the bail would be more like 10k. In general, having fixed amounts for bail, fines etc discriminates against the poor, while one of the fundamentals of justice is equal justice for all, which is not the same as "treat everyone exactly the same".
Similair example - in Switzerland anyone massively speeding (I believe more than 40km/h over limit) is fined a %age of their income, otherwise if you just have fixed fines it gives rich people a license to speed indiscriminately.
HP should be suing KPMG if they believe anyone has acted wrongly. Either the due diligence shows the problem (HP's fault for not reading it) or the problem was missed (KPMG at fault) - (or it didn't exist).
I would disagree on this. From the reporting, it would appear that a report was done.
Now, whether it was worth the paper it was written on because, among other aspects, they hadn't been given sufficient time to do it properly, or any other reason, the fact is that Leo and his board failed to act appropriately here.
Or may have - to play devil's advocate for a second, we can only go on what has been said.
However, the board of HP appear to have acted against advice and in a time frame that was unreasonable. You could almost believe that they outcome was predetermined -buy it an be damned! (Vanity project, anyone?)
So we have an interesting potential outcome - it seems doubtful that there was the level of cooking of books that HP have tried to accuse Autonomy and Lynch of doing, so in the event he is found not guilty, the eyes should turn to the then board.
And yes, that scrutiny should perhaps then extend to the auditors if necessary, but how many times are we told these C level people get paid the vast sums they do because the buck stops with them etc?
Fine. Then they become accountable and where necessary culpable. Job done.
And you know what? If he is found not guilty in is sovereign courts then that should be the end of the matter. Sorry, USA. Sorry, HP, but no, your legal system and your desires for revenge do NOT trump our legal system.
So trading somebody who admitted killing another human being, and actively abused her husband's diplomatic status to avoid prosecution, for somebody who's admitted nothing, is in all probability innocent and even in the highly unlikely event of being convicted is only guilty of embarrassing a US-owned megacorp?
Not a fair trade. In any respect.
Is no-one astounded that someone can just fork up 10 million pounds for bail?
Is it necessarily an indication of financial shenanigans? I mean usually, huge messy divorce settlements usually have the earning party declaring they have no funds to speak of.
Or is this something CEOs learn about with their MBAs and all the other certifications they have.... (along with golden parachutes etc).
Well Lynch probably made a few million when he sold his company to HP. Looks like it was ~£500 million (source: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3416571/update--mike-lynch-leaves-hp-autonomy.html). It should be relatively easy to find based on shareholdings and bonuses from the sale but I can't find a better source...
You'd never believe how much HP paid for Autonomy...
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
