UK Home Secretary Priti Patel green-lights Mike Lynch's extradition to US to face Autonomy fraud charges UK Home Secretary Priti Patel tonight approved Autonomy founder Mike Lynch's extradition to America to face criminal charges over the multi-billion-dollar sale of his tech biz to Hewlett-Packard. The British businessman is wanted in the United States to stand trial on 17 charges of fraud and false accounting. American …
I've tried to follow this but still can't make up my mind, as others have commented neither side look good in this and it seems it still has a little way to run.
But if there was some way we could get Priti Patel out of the country (or just out of government as a lesser option) I'd have no qualms about that.
If we could add Liz Truss and Nadine Dorries to the list I'd be happier.
Just so as to not appear misogynistic I'll balance this with:
Boris Johnson, Jacob Rhys-Mogg and Michael Gove.
A man can dream...
Its not that complicated. HP showed at best 10 of millions of dollars in "imporoperly" treated hardware sale. That does not explain how they spent an extra $10B on a company that was being shopped to others for $4b and with said other prospective buyers considering $4B as being over valued. I cant see how the judge found in favor of HP since they did not prove or implied that the hardware sales was a reason for their purchase.
I noted "improperly" treated hardware sale because Autonomy auditors approved the treatment and the UK authorities said they were not improper so i cant see how the case proceed with that as a basis of a Fraud accusation.
Its not that complicated.
Indeed ...
It is not at all complicated.
But it does stink quite badly.
There's something in all of this that has not seen the light yet.
Hopefully, it may eventually but it will not do Lynch any good.
Like I have posted before:
1. A pension fund representing some HP shareholders sued over the $8.8B write-down and settled for $100M which will eventually come from every shareholder's pockets, including theirs.
Q:
Why did CEO Leo Apotheker agree, against all contrary internal/market opinions, to pay a 58% premium on Autonomy's share price and why did next CEO Meg Whitman go along with the deal, to the extent of declaring herself to be "really excited" about Autonomy's future with HP?
Q:
Neither of them have any responsibility?
How come there is no class action suit against them from the rest of the shareholders?
An $8.8B writedown on the acquisition of a $11.0B company is unheard of.
While a writedown on acquisitions are not uncomon, the usual seems to be no more than 10/15%, which in this case would have been an acceptable $1.65B. But ~80%?
2. Deloitte fucked up royally and as a result was fined ~$20M by UK regulators and then settled with HP for another ~$45M (probably their fees), along with a document letting them off the hook.
Q:
Only ~$45M for such a huge fuck-up with no other liability for the auditors in an $11.0B deal?
3. Not one of HP's heavyweight consultors (UBS, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Slaughter & May, Morgan Lewis among others) have any liability in this matter?
Q:
These outfits are all staffed by morons?
No one saw/said anything?
So ...
- None of HP's CEOs are being held liable for the acquisition/writedown.
- The auditors settled with HP, were heavily fined by the regulators and that was that.
- A hedge fund representing some shareholders settled for $100M and that was that.
- The rest of HPs shareholders seem to be fine with the state of things.
And all the responsibility for this lies on Mike Lynch?
The most important question is still this one:
Just whose money did HP flush down the corporate toilet?
I think that is the key to what is going on.
O.
Which I expect him to do before undergoing top level training in appearing autistic, suicidal and desperately sad. In other news Google has seen a marked spike in searches for embassies of nations without an extradition treaty with the US in walking distance of the High Court. Mr Lynch, a notable Chinese citizen and staunch defender of the CCP, was seen earlier today shaking hands with the Chinese ambassador before boarding a Eurostar to Paris, his ancestral home, to reclaim his French citizenship. In a brief exchange with reporters he denied categorically having any knowledge that France does not extradite its citizens outside the European Union: "Non, non Je ne sais rien about les matters such" he exclaimed before being rushed to hospital with a possibly fatal illness for which there is no treatment in the US which tragically renders its sufferers unfit to face trial.
Which I expect him to do before undergoing top level training in appearing autistic, suicidal and desperately sad.
Shouldn't really be required. I mean, until Anne Saccoolas is enjoying a stint at Her Majesty's pleasure we should be declining all extradition requests to America whatever the facts of the case.
Under the Cooksley criteria it is highly unlikely Anne Saccoolas would spend time in prison. The circumstances fall under category 1 (out of 4 with 1 being the least serious) which carries a sentencing guideline of 12 months to 2 years with the sentence suspended for someone with no previous convictions. Before 1988 hardly anyone was imprisoned for the equivalent of causing death by dangerous driving and even when the offence was created it only allowed for a 5 year maximum. It's gradually had the possible sentence increased to up to 14 years but she is, at worst, guilty in a category 1 sense only.
He should hire Assange’s solicitors.
or
He should consider getting temporary dementia as somebody ot other did a couple of decades or so ago. Can’t remember his name or trial case but it may have been the Guinness thing. It’s Friday, am in the pub and can’ be arsed to look it up.
He should hire Assange’s solicitors.
or
He should consider getting temporary dementia as somebody ot other did a couple of decades or so ago. Can’t remember his name or trial case but it may have been the Guinness thing. It’s Friday, am in the pub and can’ be arsed to look it up.
Ernest Saunders is the bloke you’re thinking of I believe and yes that was the Guinness share manipulation scheme. He served under a year of his sentence because he was “suffering from Alzheimer’s. Weirdly he made a full recovery from this normally 100% fatal disease.
Yep, that was the Guinness takeover of the Distillers' Company - which eventually evolved into Diageo.
The deal and the shenanigans were a fiasco at the time.
However the wholly remarkable recovery of Saunders from an incurable condition was surely worthy of multiple Nobel Prizes for the doctors, research pharmacists and other scientists and clinicians involved /s
Be careful about comparing this case (allegation of corporate fraud, proven in the High Court) against the other (allegation of espionage by a journalist ). I have no idea which way the Assange decision will go, but it isn't remotely comparable, either legally, politically, or ethically.
is wikileaks a news website? No. However they obtain information they share with the press. In the case of assange lots of the press reported those leaks. Whether you like Assange or not he was at the least a source for information shared to him and wikileaks that was passed on to the press and as such should be protected from prosecution.
Do you really want to live in a world where governments can bully people and act with impunity? They almost do already but you want that to be worse?
I think the most egregious part of this is it's preventing him facing justice for the rapes he admitted he carried out.
Let's not forget, he admitted the facts were true, and his defence was a point of law: he merely claimed he'd found a loophole that meant his rapes weren't criminal offences.
> he was at the least a source for information shared to him and wikileaks that was passed on to the press and as such should be protected from prosecution.
IIRC, the US's case is that he wasn't merely a reporter/conduit of information, but in fact encouraged it's leaking and provided technical assistance in gaining access to some of it.
Now, of course they would say that, but if it's actually true (which, seems likely enough) then he's stepped outside the bounds of a journalists role and so the protections do not apply.
> Do you really want to live in a world where governments can bully people and act with impunity
No, but although we talk about government often, it's not just wbout the govt - it's about people with power: that includes journalists. If you want to label Assange a journalist then he needs to remain within the (fairly loose) controls of that profession.
Although not (currently?) part of the US case against him, the shit-headery he pulled trying to swing US elections with Russian sourced info is a good example of stepping outside that.
Put simply, we don't want journalists running round pwning things, nor do we want them using unreliable sources - do you want to live in a world where they can run around with impunity, driving their own agenda?
There's a balance to be struck
This post has been deleted by its author
The governments advice to business is do what ever you want just don't get caught.
I quote the CBI:-
"The CBI is the UK's premier business organization, providing a voice for firms at a regional, national and international level to policymakers. Our Purpose — helping business create a more prosperous society"
CBI has no ethics and Mike Lynch did get caught.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Preeti, also: Preety, Preity or Priti , Prethy is a feminine given name in Indian and especially Indo-Aryan languages."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preeti
Whilst the above does not list "Preethi", that variation is easier to pronounce
http://www.parentingnation.in/indianbabynames/meaning-of-preethi-name
I am not sure the name fits the character...
"pleasure", "kindness", "grace", "love"
She probably sings Leonard Bernstein's song from West Side Story in the shower...
I feel Priti,
Oh, so Priti,
I feel Priti and witty and bright!
And I pity
Any girl who isn't me tonight.
I feel charming,
Oh, so charming
It's alarming how charming I feel!
Such a Priti face,
Such a Priti dress,
Such a Priti smile,
Such a Priti me!
If Lynch gets to the People's Republic of California he will be lucky to avoid a rope burn. To many CA criminals got hurt by Leo the Galactic Idiot blunders and want to lynch anyone they can get their grubby mitts on. They should be going after Leo the Galactic Idiot; there is the real criminal in this saga.
Who? What? Your post makes no sense.
I assume you're talking about this guy: https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/01/leo_apotheker_autonomy_trial/
(Due Diligence? Isn't that Dilbert's job?)
But what do you mean by "Too many californian criminals got hurt by leo's blunders"
As far as I can tell, the last time a person was hanged by the State of California was in 1942. No one has been killed there by any method as punishment for a crime since 2006 and if I had to guess no one ever will be again. It is indeed the People's Republic of California, but Communism isn't what it used to be; the fashion nowadays is to punish enemies of the state by taking everything they have including hope and honour but leaving them alive to suffer. The probability that Dr Lynch's trial or punishment will involve a rope or his premature death is exactly zero regardless of the outcome. If he's convicted, he'll probably serve a few years in a country club and return to England as some kind of perverse hero.
The law in this country says mowing down cyclists by driving on the wrong side of the road merits no more than a slap on the wrist, if you don't flee the scene.
It's quite clear what the real scandal here is, and it's not that Ann Sacoolas won't be extradited for something the law takes only slightly more seriously than a speeding offence.
Everyone is up in arms because they imagine she got away with something major. That says a lot about what the penalty here _ought_ to be. More than time the law was updated to reflect that.
Too bad we can't extradite the CEOs of Apple, NVIDIA, Intel etc to the UK for ripping off consumers for years.
I'm not suggesting that the folks at Autonomy are good guys, for all I know they might be complete wankers but, if HPE didn't do the requisite due diligence on the Autonomy accounts, then it's their fuck up, I'd be more inclined to sue the accountants they hired rather than the folks that sold Autonomy. HPE is looking like a bunch of sore losers and fuckwits here with buyers remorse to me treating the courts like the eBay dispute system.
Also, Priti Patel must be a fucking idiot to allow these guys to be extradited without throwing the hit and run brigade into the deal. What a truly incompetent mess she is. Imagine having her on your sales team negotiating deals.
Customer: It's not a bad deal, but I'm not sure...if you knock 50% off, i'll buy it now.
Priti Patel: I'll tell you what, i'll knock 90% off but I have to insist on giving you two of them instead of one! Don't worry about paying either...in fact you can have them for free. No wait, I'll give you £1000 in cash as well....and an M&S voucher for £100.
"...if HPE didn't do the requisite due diligence on the Autonomy accounts, then it's their fuck up, [...] HPE is looking like a bunch of sore losers and fuckwits here with buyers remorse to me treating the courts like the eBay dispute system."
Got it in one.
It's not like HPE never sold anyone a sack of s**t, but then again they have clout with governments all over the world (unlike the poor bugger who's up for extradition).
"Too bad we can't extradite the CEOs of Apple, NVIDIA, Intel etc to the UK for ripping off consumers for years."
I doubt many Americans would mind. They'd probably throw in a few more "on the house".
"HPE is looking like a bunch of sore losers and fuckwits here with buyers remorse to me treating the courts like the eBay dispute system."
Your mistake is assuming that the blame has to rest one place or the other, or be apportioned somehow. If a barker and a couple of shills are running a crooked game of 3-card monte (news flash: all 3-card monte games are crooked), it's true that anyone who gets taken is an idiot who deserved to lose his money. But running the crooked game is still a crime, because knowingly and deliberately cheating people out of their money is forbidden. Each party has sole responsibility for its own actions; both are at fault independently. It's the same here.
So Rolls-Royce makes jet engines and gives them a way to get a maintenance contract. That's okay.
Autonomy gives away hardware to get the software contract and that's not.
Worse still Amazon gives away free delivery to get prime subscriptions.
UK agrees to extradite Lynch on an unproven criminal charge.
The Germans do not extradite any of the executives found guilty in the diesel gate scandal. The US settled for a massive fine.
None of the above seems fair to me.
David Lewis 2,
"None of the above seems fair to me.
That is because you are forgetting about the “special relationship” between the UK and the US, which of course only works to the advantage of the US."
That is why it is called 'Special' otherwise it would be just a 'Relationship' where rules apply fairly in both directions. !!!
A proven criminal charge is not needed for someone accused of a crime to be extradited for that crime — please consider reading relevant portions of the Baker review of the UK’s extradition arrangements to learn what is needed for extradition.
> "A proven criminal charge is not needed..."
Indeed, the exact opposite in fact. Had he been prosecuted in the UK then he couldn't be extradited.
There seems to be an element of jury selection in choosing not to prosecute him in the UK and this has happened before.
The US settled for a massive fine.
Article 16 (2) of the German constitution limits the extradition of German citizens to only EU countries and international courts. In accordance with the German constitution, article 7 (1) of the extradition treaty between Germany and the US states that “Neither of the Contracting Parties shall be bound to extradite its own nationals”. This being the case, it was easier for the US to pursue a massive fine than to seek extradition of the Volkswagen AG executives who bore ultimate responsibility for Dieselgate.
As far as I'm concerned I recall trying to deal with Autonomy to resolve a problem with their search engine; we'd switched to Autonomy and (mostly) it did OK. However when it didn't, we were on our own. Trying to get worthwhile support from them was best done with a Ouija board. All this flows from Lynch's attitudes, so a sojourn with the less-privileged will be good for his soul...
How many US citizens have been extradited to the UK, having committed their supposed crimes in the US, under this wonderful treaty? I'll save your googling, it's a big fat zero.
If only Priti could be as efficient at deporting the hundreds of thousands of failed asylum seekers that have turned up over the years.
How many US citizens, having been accused of committing UK-extraditable crimes in the US, has the UK unsuccessfully attempted to extradite? If the number of unsuccessful UK attempts to extradite is a big fat zero, then one can hardly claim that as evidence of one-way bias.
Given your anonymous opinion of the current extradition treaty, do you believe that the previous extradition treaty (1972, as amended in 1985) should be reïnstated? Was the extradition treaty before that one (1931) the gold standard, or was it the one before that one (1889), or was it the first one (1842)?
Irony Deficient>>>How many US citizens, having been accused of committing UK-extraditable crimes in the US, has the UK unsuccessfully attempted to extradite? If the number of unsuccessful UK attempts to extradite is a big fat zero
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extradition-requests-between-the-uk-and-us-from-april-2007-to-may-2014/extradition-requests-between-the-uk-and-us-from-april-2007-to-may-2014
"Between 26 April 2007 and 31 May 2014, the UK requested the extradition of 8 American citizens and as a result of those requests, 5 were extradited in that period."
So five of eight US citizens in that time period were successfully extradited to the UK — meaning a successful extradition rate by the UK of 62.5%.
According to the same source, in the same time period, the US requested the extradition of 41 UK citizens, and 28 were successfully extradited — meaning a successful extradition rate by the US of 68.3%.
If you are the same Anonymous Coward who wrote the initial comment in this thread, would you say that a successful extradition rate of 62.5% vs. a successful extradition rate of 68.3% demonstrates that extraditions are “one way”?
"The US has surrendered only 58 individuals to the United Kingdom since 2007, with only 11 of them American citizens, while 135 have gone the other way."
Volume 687: debated on Thursday 21 January 2021
What are the % of UK citizens vs Non-UK citizens extradited to the US? And vice versa?
Vassal state behaviour?
From what source did Mr. Davis obtain those numbers (and for what time period)? Hansard doesn’t say. Perhaps the same source that Mr. Davis used would offer answers to your percentage questions.
Again, what are the total number of extradition requests by each nation to the other? Is the ratio of extradition requests by the two nations comparable to the ratio of successful extraditions to the two nations?
Would a hegemon state grant any extradition requests at all to a vassal state?
The issue is more that the US authorities are very keen to prosecute these type of cross border crimes, whereas we aren’t.
Not an expert but I suspect the fact that the justice system in the US is politicised, while ours is not, is the difference. A high profile prosecution of a Limey is always a vote winner.
The keenness on the US side is probably due more to state district attorneys seeking to propel themselves into state or federal politics, where “being tough on crime” is an evergreen slogan in political advertising. (I’d guess that most extraditions are sought here for crimes that are under state jurisdiction; constitutionally, states have to funnel their international extradition requests through the federal government.)
I’ve never seen a political campaign here hinge on a high profile prosecution of a Briton (although there have been campaigns that had a focus on high profile American prisoners, e.g. Williiam Horton in the 1988 presidential election), and I’ve never heard anyone here say that they’d vote for whichever candidate would prosecute more Britons.
"A high profile prosecution of a Limey is always a vote winner."
What planet are you living on? This case isn't high profile anywhere but this web journal, and the fact that Dr Lynch is a Brit means absolutely nothing to the American voter. A good 20% of Americans think England is part of the US, and another 20% couldn't find it on a map to save their lives. Do you seriously believe any DA is dumb enough to make this case a central part of his campaign strategy because Dr Lynch is a foreigner? Or because Americans hate the UK? I doubt even 10% of the electorate in that district have ever heard of this case at all and public opinion of the UK is probably divided pretty well between total ignorance and indifference. If you go to the US and ask 100 random people on the street for their opinions of the UK I pretty well guarantee at least 90 of them will fail to answer the question in any remotely substantive manner and at least a third will tell you that you sound like James Bond. If your thesis here is that the voting public will glorify a DA who saved their beloved domestic corporations from the horrific depredations of a hateful foreign scoundrel acting on behalf of the dastardly Crown, I have to tell you that it's beyond ludicrous.
If a DA is going to pander to voters using crimes committed by foreigners, he'll choose a crime involving sex or violence, preferably both, and he'll choose one committed in the United States against US citizens (there are plenty of those to choose among). HPE aren't sympathetic, corporate fraud isn't sexy, and the "tough on crime" DA wants to target voters who've been made to feel unsafe in their own homes by lurid press coverage. Dr Lynch and his alleged crimes don't constitute a threat even in the most ignorant American's fevered imagination. Extraditing Brits for miscellaneous white-collar crimes allegedly committed from distant shores is almost certainly a political strategy not yet considered by even the most dim-witted American DA. We understand, you feel put upon by an aggressive, often obnoxious, United States and perhaps your own leaders' ill-considered, even supine, responses. Unfortunately, this particular argument smacks of desperation and ignorance and I doubt it will carry others to your side.
We should stop sending people to the yanks, they have no idea of justice and their citizens are allowed to slaughter people on our roads and run away to avoid justice here. So what if a few yanks lost some cash, it was stolen from the British empire in the last two wars anyway. Stop thinking the yanks are our friends, look at steel tariffs, look at the way they refused to share the nnuclear stuff with the people that helped them create it, look at the IRA, Suez and all the rest, the yanks hate us except when they need our help to spread their poison around the world
That option is in fact available to the UK, despite the obligation of both states to extradite to each other in article 1 of the current extradition treaty, because article 24 allows either state to unilaterally terminate the treaty with six months’ notice. Since neither the Conservatives nor Labour have shown any interest in terminating the treaty to date, it might require a new political party to hold a majority in the Commons for at least six months to see that termination through. Now’s your chance to have significant influence in founding the Yanxit™ party!
“Stop thinking the yanks are our friends, look at steel tariffs, look at the way they refused to share the nnuclear stuff with the people that helped them create it, look at the IRA, Suez and all the rest…”
Huh? I’m no fan of US tentacles around the planet but you’re saying they’re behind the Irish Republican movement? I could be wrong but I don’t think Ireland ever got support from the CIA to fight the British?
So a rich guy was caught doing some money crime. Rich guy being a UK citizen and the money crime being prosecuted by the US. Both countries are relativly stable democracies which generally follow the principle of "the rule of law". What could be more straight forward than this.
In contrast, Assange faces possible charges using the Espionage Act, which may even carry a death sentence. Both matters, the espionage and the possible sentence, make the Assange case different.
However, money crimes are illegal in both the US and the UK, I guess to a comparable degree.
So, why is this such a big deal?
Nice, that I got a down vote.
However, I still am in the dark why this is a story at all.
Fraud is pretty common crime, illegal in both juristictions.
So, it should be a no-brainer to extradite.
What makes this case special, such that this is a; reported here (maybe the tech-tangent?), and b; why is the government involved at all?
Am I missing anything really important here? So some rich bloke has been strongly suspected of being naughty with a company in a foreign country, now they're going to take him the for trial. How will my day change today, tomorrow or next week? The only HP thing I've ever owned, still do, is a 102 keyboard but outside this does this really have any effect on me or my life, or anyone else's day to day goings on?
*yawn*
For my own enlightenment, which is the figure of hate here? Is it Dr Lynch? Secretary Patel? Whatever sad sack represents HPE's long-faded glory? US Attorney David Anderson? I agree that leftists want to "stick it to the man" but I'm having a tough time figuring out who that is, given that the prevailing sentiment seems to be that Dr Lynch shouldn't be extradited. Since HPE aren't going to get any of their money back regardless of the outcome and United States Attorneys don't face elections in which the great unwashed might decide that failure to prosecute a foreigner for corporate accounting fraud merits expulsion from office (seriously?), it seems rather implausible that refusing to extradite Dr Lynch sticks it to anyone. The impression I have of the extradition opponents is one familiar to observers in most democracies: I'm ignorant, I'm angry, and I've decided anything Secretary Patel does must be wrong and never mind the facts or the law. It's hard to imagine a billionaire CEO who's already been found liable for fraud by an English court being such a cause célèbre of the British left, yet here we appear to be.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
