Government Corruption

[Banditbandit]

This is completely corrupt and morally bankrupt - we have the fifth most wanted man in China living here in NZ .. and the Chinese want him back to face charges.

But for $43million we let him stay, with no charges, gets all his assets back - and no extradition to China. He's out and free ...

Forget Godzone being a Tax Shelter - for $43million we will shelter international criminals ...

Corrupt Corrupt and Corrupt.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/william-yan-agrees-to-pay-43-million-2016082313#.V7zpPMowYto.facebook


I'm sure Kim Dotcom will be lining up with $43million next ..

[JimO]

but we let so many criminals stay for free

[Akzle]

but we let so many criminals stay for free

and pay them!

good old jewry.

[ellipsis]

...if the CIA wanted him, he would be theirs in a flash...

[TheDemonLord]

Me thinks it would be a different story if he wasn't likely to face the Death Penalty.

For my side, whilst it's morally corrupt in one sense to allow someone to pay the blood money for their freedom, I'm not so sure I could allow an extradition for fraud charges, where I would in effect be signing the mans Death Warrant. In this instance for me, the Moral Corruption of accepting the bribe is less than the moral corruption condemning a man to death.

If he was a Murderer or Rapist or Pedophile - I'd be happy to hand him over, but not for Fraud.

[Katman]

Me thinks it would be a different story if he wasn't likely to face the Death Penalty.

For my side, whilst it's morally corrupt in one sense to allow someone to pay the blood money for their freedom, I'm not so sure I could allow an extradition for fraud charges, where I would in effect be signing the mans Death Warrant. In this instance for me, the Moral Corruption of accepting the bribe is less than the moral corruption condemning a man to death.

If he was a Murderer or Rapist or Pedophile - I'd be happy to hand him over, but not for Fraud.

Letting him stay in the country on compassionate grounds is one thing (personally, I'd happily send him back) but the prick should forfeit all his assets.

[TheDemonLord]

Letting him stay in the country on compassionate grounds is one thing but the prick should forfeit all his assets.

I agree with the sentiment, but forfeiting all his assets in lieu of death - really makes us no better than the old time gangsters running a protection racket.


And before you point out that I'm splitting hairs because we are partially doing that anyway - you would be right.

[Katman]

I agree with the sentiment, but forfeiting all his assets in lieu of death - really makes us no better than the old time gangsters running a protection racket.

Except that all the proceeds of his assets should go back to China to help cover the $129 million he embezzled.

After all, what right has the New Zealand government got to lay claim to any of the $43 million?

Let the motherfucker live on the streets if he wants to stay that badly.

[TheDemonLord]

Except that all the proceeds of his assets should go back to China to help cover the $129 million he embezzled.

After all, what right has the New Zealand government got to lay claim to any of the $43 million?

Let the motherfucker live on the streets if he wants to stay that badly.

The article says that the assets will be shared between NZ and China, so presumably there is an element of co-operation between the 2 governments.

This is probably partly due to Limited Liability laws (same as when the director of a failed finance company gets to keep all of his personal assetts)

I'm going to presume that you take great umbrage with that bit of legislation and it's scope for manipulation that allows people to screw a business over, but keep their multi-million dollar lifestyle.

[Katman]

I'm going to presume that you take great umbrage with that bit of legislation and it's scope for manipulation that allows people to screw a business over, but keep their multi-million dollar lifestyle.

You presume right.

[TheDemonLord]

You presume right.

I should quote that and put it in my signature....

I'll agree there are times when it seems an offense to the concept of natural justice that they get to keep their mansions, Yachts and luxury vehicles, whilst Mr and Mrs average investor looses their life savings.

Although, didn't they make some changes last year or the year before to address this for Finance Companies?

[Katman]

I should quote that and put it in my signature....

I'll agree there are times when it seems an offense to the concept of natural justice that they get to keep their mansions, Yachts and luxury vehicles, whilst Mr and Mrs average investor looses their life savings.

Although, didn't they make some changes last year or the year before to address this for Finance Companies?

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would run a business into liquidation, owing any amount to creditors, and yet still seek to secure their personal wealth.

[TheDemonLord]

I have nothing but contempt for anyone who would run a business into liquidation, owing any amount to creditors, and yet still seek to secure their personal wealth.

Okay - Where do you draw the line?

Suppose a succesfull CEO moves to a failing company to try and rescue it, but the company goes under after 6 months - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a business owner is trying every best practices, but the economy has turned to shit and their company goes under - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a Director made a decision that caused the company to fail due to unforseen external circumstances - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you, that I have nothing but contempt. However where do you draw the line between foul play (embezzlement/Fraud) and bad management (no diversification of risk, poor decision making, mismanagement) and Bad luck (economy crashing, natural disaster etc.).

[Swoop]

Forget Godzone being a Tax Shelter - for $43million we will shelter international criminals ...

Corrupt Corrupt and Corrupt.
Absolutely. Most certainly so when he has done the same thing in Australia.

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you
Sort of like Dick Smith in Aus?
Company asset strips the chain.
Then, sucks in "investors in a nationally recognised brand" ...
Then closes the company.

[Voltaire]

Okay - Where do you draw the line?

Suppose a succesfull CEO moves to a failing company to try and rescue it, but the company goes under after 6 months - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a business owner is trying every best practices, but the economy has turned to shit and their company goes under - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a Director made a decision that caused the company to fail due to unforseen external circumstances - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you, that I have nothing but contempt. However where do you draw the line between foul play (embezzlement/Fraud) and bad management (no diversification of risk, poor decision making, mismanagement) and Bad luck (economy crashing, natural disaster etc.).

Wasn't that how Limited Liability Companies came to be in England some centuries ago as projects needed non Govt funding and no one wanted to take the risk?
Be interested to know how he embezzled that sort of money with no one noticing.

[TheDemonLord]

Wasn't that how Limited Liability Companies came to be in England some centuries ago as projects needed non Govt funding and no one wanted to take the risk?
Be interested to know how he embezzled that sort of money with no one noticing.

Probably the same way anyone does it - by Bribing the people that do notice or by making it so convoluted that no one can be bothered digging deep enough to notice.

[Banditbandit]

You presume right.

I agree ...

[Banditbandit]

Me thinks it would be a different story if he wasn't likely to face the Death Penalty.

For my side, whilst it's morally corrupt in one sense to allow someone to pay the blood money for their freedom, I'm not so sure I could allow an extradition for fraud charges, where I would in effect be signing the mans Death Warrant. In this instance for me, the Moral Corruption of accepting the bribe is less than the moral corruption condemning a man to death.

If he was a Murderer or Rapist or Pedophile - I'd be happy to hand him over, but not for Fraud.

Pedophiles .. would you condemn pedophiles to death?

Is condemning a pedophile to death more morally corrupt than accepting a bribe so someone doesn't face charges?

[mashman]

This is completely corrupt and morally bankrupt - we have the fifth most wanted man in China living here in NZ .. and the Chinese want him back to face charges.

But for $43million we let him stay, with no charges, gets all his assets back - and no extradition to China. He's out and free ...

Forget Godzone being a Tax Shelter - for $43million we will shelter international criminals ...

Corrupt Corrupt and Corrupt.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/william-yan-agrees-to-pay-43-million-2016082313#.V7zpPMowYto.facebook


I'm sure Kim Dotcom will be lining up with $43million next ..

Aye... economic need beats law. They all understand it. They probably all accept it depending on whether a scalp is required or not. Who needs the law eh... Financial immunity from prosecution. Unless, of course, the gent in question is a Sovereign being :blip:

http://www.mahala.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/diplomatic-immunity-480x263.jpg

[Katman]

Okay - Where do you draw the line?

Suppose a succesfull CEO moves to a failing company to try and rescue it, but the company goes under after 6 months - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a business owner is trying every best practices, but the economy has turned to shit and their company goes under - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?
Suppose a Director made a decision that caused the company to fail due to unforseen external circumstances - do they have to forfeit their personal wealth?

For me, when there has been conscious foul play - I agree with you, that I have nothing but contempt. However where do you draw the line between foul play (embezzlement/Fraud) and bad management (no diversification of risk, poor decision making, mismanagement) and Bad luck (economy crashing, natural disaster etc.).

You'll be defending diplomatic immunity next.

[TheDemonLord]

Pedophiles .. would you condemn pedophiles to death?

Absolutely (provided that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt), Hell, I'd pull the trigger myself.


Is condemning a pedophile to death more morally corrupt than accepting a bribe so someone doesn't face charges?

From my perspective - No.

[TheDemonLord]

You'll be defending diplomatic immunity next.

The same challenge could be raised - as to where and how you draw the line?

[Banditbandit]

Absolutely (provided that the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt), Hell, I'd pull the trigger myself.



From my perspective - No.

Interesting response .. your morality is, then, situational ?

[TheDemonLord]

Interesting response .. your morality is, then, situational ?

Well, isn't all rational Morality?

To quote Star Trek:


There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions.

I mean, Absolute Morality is one of the Corner stones of most Religions and a brief review of history shows how 'Moral' they turned out.

When I come to make a decision, I like to review the data at hand and account for each of the factors and let them weigh on my decision.

[Brian d marge]

I'm afraid the old time gangsters are running the show

sent for a divine source

[Oakie]

I don't think its 'corrupt'. Essentially he has paid a huge fine in an agreed settlement. Mediated settlements happen all the time and its a bit like that. Call it corrupt if the judiciary were not involved at all or the government denied it happened ... but they haven't hidden or denied it. A nice wee win for the Consolidated Fund.

[Voltaire]

Well, isn't all rational Morality?

To quote Star Trek:



I mean, Absolute Morality is one of the Corner stones of most Religions and a brief review of history shows how 'Moral' they turned out.

When I come to make a decision, I like to review the data at hand and account for each of the factors and let them weigh on my decision.

Quoting Star Trek :rolleyes::lol:

Don't they blow up other space ships with probably Romulan Women and Children on?

[ellipsis]

Well, isn't all rational Morality?

To quote Star Trek:



I mean, Absolute Morality is one of the Corner stones of most Religions and a brief review of history shows how 'Moral' they turned out.

When I come to make a decision, I like to review the data at hand and account for each of the factors and let them weigh on my decision.

...how much your decision would depend on your, preconceived ideas of 'how things should be'...NB... 'your, preconceived', ideas...

[TheDemonLord]

Quoting Star Trek :rolleyes::lol:

Don't they blow up other space ships with probably Romulan Women and Children on?

[Pedant hat]No because the Romulans only travelled with military personnel on their craft [/Pedant Hat]

However Star Trek did do a good job of exploring various philosophical issues.

[TheDemonLord]

...how much your decision would depend on your, preconceived ideas of 'how things should be'...NB... 'your, preconceived', ideas...

Well - aren't we all guilty of that to greater or lesser degrees?

[local]

I'd bet it's his political views the Chinese wanted to execute him for. In a few weeks he'll probably just disappear.

[Oakie]

I'd bet it's his political views the Chinese wanted to execute him for. In a few weeks he'll probably just disappear.

If they come and take him does that make him a Chinese Takeaway?

[Banditbandit]

Well, isn't all rational Morality?

No.


To quote Star Trek:



I mean, Absolute Morality is one of the Corner stones of most Religions and a brief review of history shows how 'Moral' they turned out.

When I come to make a decision, I like to review the data at hand and account for each of the factors and let them weigh on my decision.



Your response would indicate that your morality is values-based, which may or may not be situational ethics, but is probably closer to Aristotelian ethics.

[Ocean1]

I don't think its 'corrupt'. Essentially he has paid a huge fine in an agreed settlement. Mediated settlements happen all the time and its a bit like that. Call it corrupt if the judiciary were not involved at all or the government denied it happened ... but they haven't hidden or denied it. A nice wee win for the Consolidated Fund.

"He fled China in 2000, and was considered an enemy by the Government for his links to the Falun Gong and pro-democracy movements."

In which case how much faith can we put in subsequent Chinese accusations?

"In 2012 Mr Yan was found not guilty of immigration fraud."

So he's a Kiwi. And he's not a criminal. But hell, we should probably ship all of our "undesirables" off to China to be dealt with.

And if you find NZ corrupt, (a country that routinely tops the least corrupt nation list) than you've never at any time been anywhere else.

If there's anything dodgy going on here it's the gratuity he's paid. Either he's guilty of a crime and he should be treated accordingly, or he's not, in which case let him get on with his life.

[Banditbandit]

"He fled China in 2000, and was considered an enemy by the Government for his links to the Falun Gong and pro-democracy movements."

In which case how much faith can we put in subsequent Chinese accusations?

"In 2012 Mr Yan was found not guilty of immigration fraud."

So he's a Kiwi. And he's not a criminal. But hell, we should probably ship all of our "undesirables" off to China to be dealt with.

And if you find NZ corrupt, (a country that routinely tops the least corrupt nation list) than you've never at any time been anywhere else.

If there's anything dodgy going on here it's the gratuity he's paid. Either he's guilty of a crime and he should be treated accordingly, or he's not, in which case let him get on with his life.


He has been accused of a crime - he has avoided a trail by paying $43million.

Any other person accussed of a crime would have to stand trial - UNLESS now they can pay $43million and not face trial.

Pity Scott Watson, David Bain, etc did not have that kind of money ...

If they'd paid $43million to walk free you would hit the roof ..

[TheDemonLord]

Your response would indicate that your morality is values-based, which may or may not be situational ethics, but is probably closer to Aristotelian ethics.

Possibly - Philosophy and Ethics is an area where I have not read much, So I'll take your word for it.

Out of interest though, Values based and Aristotleian (based on the little I know of Aristotle) sounds like a good place for building a set of ethics - how would you rate those schools of thought?

[mashman]

Oi, Akzle... A sovereign being supposedly buying his way out of justice :laugh:

[Ocean1]

He has been accused of a crime - he has avoided a trail by paying $43million.

Any other person accussed of a crime would have to stand trial - UNLESS now they can pay $43million and not face trial.

Pity Scott Watson, David Bain, etc did not have that kind of money ...

If they'd paid $43million to walk free you would hit the roof ..

But he hasn't been found guilty of a crime.

And even if Scott Watson or David Bain had the money they would still have gone to trial and been found guilty, the difference here is the crown doesn't have the evidence needed to convict him.

As I said, if the case against him is sound then send it to trial, if found guilty then sentence him accordingly, if not then he walks. I see no rationale behind any fine or half arsed sentence until that happens.

There are, however legal mechanisms that allow property to be seized under suspicion, and that's where the potential for corruption lies. Like the US law that allows state cops to keep anything they seize related to suspected interstate drug running, and yes there's a bunch of seriously dodgy police behaviour associated with that particular rule.

[Katman]

As I said, if the case against him is sound then send it to trial, if found guilty then sentence him accordingly, if not then he walks.

I'm assuming the crimes he's accused of happened over in China.

Why would we try him here?

[Banditbandit]

Possibly - Philosophy and Ethics is an area where I have not read much, So I'll take your word for it.

Out of interest though, Values based and Aristotleian (based on the little I know of Aristotle) sounds like a good place for building a set of ethics - how would you rate those schools of thought?

Top of my list - I teach Aristotelian Ethics ...