So the offense is, essentially, not arranging your affairs in a way so as to leave them open to easy scrutiny by the state. With decades of precedent allowing such laws how can strong cryptography possibly be permissible?
The financial reporting regulations surrounding structuring are pretty specific, it really isn't the sort of thing you would use as a salvo in a war to inspect everything.
These are "FIFA Officials" in the same way that the representatives countries send to the UN are "UN Officials", or US Congressfolk are "US Officials". They aren't people who actually do the work at FIFA.
$150 million over 20 years for sports rights in Latin America seems to indicate pretty slim margins. I wonder what the deal was with bribes and kickbacks over the selection of the host country for the 2010 World Cup (i.e. South Africa)?
No doubt terrible things go on among the members and their representatives at FIFA (as they do at the UN). Perhaps someone could explain how to organise an international federation that prevents corruption in its member (i.e. owner) organisations.
I don't quite understand how money laundering and fraud are "made up crimes". IMO they are very real crimes. If the convictions are wrong (i.e. not based on evidence), then say so, but claiming that crimes are "made up" is weasel language.
Money laundering is a recent invention as a crime. None of the actions involved are actually criminal in themselves, it's just that they (supposedly) make it harder for the authorities to detect something they might want to be obvious, to assist in the War on Drugs, or tax avoidance, or (more recently) terrorism.
As to "fraud", I actually referred to "wire fraud conspiracy", which is, more or less, once having had some sort of agreement (tacit or otherwise) to do something with a dishonest intention where a telephone was involved in some way or other. Note that you don't actually have to have followed through on that intention for the "crime" to have been committed.
These defendants plead guilty, so the convictions are no doubt correct. And no doubt many millions of bribes were paid. But I think a degree of skepticism about prosecutorial conduct is appropriate no matter what the supposed target of the prosecution.
Well, "recent" is relative. Modern money laundering procedures started to develop in 1920's and 1930's; the proceeds of crime were hidden with banking schemes, and Meyer Lansky eventually even bought a Swiss bank to help do it for the American mob.
But I would guess that already ancient Chinese criminal gangs did something similar, to make the proceeds of illegal activities appear legal.
> I wonder what the deal was with bribes and kickbacks over the selection of the host country for the 2010 World Cup (i.e. South Africa)?
Answering my own question, having now skimmed the indictment, it seems to be the usual suspect taking money paid by the South African federation to the CFU for its support in the bid process - something which seems to be entirely legitimate - for himself (which isn't).
An independent check on government and power? Where and when has this happened? I know this is the story journolists (sic) tell themselves, but for all of its adoption of a neutral speaking-truth-to-power self-description, the modern practice of reporting is pretty much in lock-step with (one could almost say 'produces and reproduces') the establishment.
I am a huge cynic of the news industry and the way it often serves the rich, connected, and powerful, but have to acknowledge that some publications and journalists have exposed official wrongdoing and have brought down powerful people and institutions. The example that I always turn to is the expose in my hometown of abuses perpetuated by the Catholic Church in the early 2000s: http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/
Right. Or if that question isn't current enough, how about: What do you consider the Snowden revelations about the NSA?
There may well be a lot of bad, boring, or inconsequential journalism out there designed to generate click-throughs -- the push for this is partly why I left the industry -- but you can look up the list of Pulitzer Prize winners, recent and past, if you need a reminder of why we need an independent press that acts as a public service.
OK. I have contemplated the list of Pulitzer Prizes for Beat Reporting(http://www.pulitzer.org/bycat/Beat-Reporting) as an example, and fail to see anything that doesn't advance the dominant paradigm. If that is what 'public service' means to you then I wonder why we need a whole estate that arrogates such particular privileges to itself.
giving voice to stories and ultimately serving as an independent check on government and power
What is this "check" then? SCOTUS checks legislation by throwing it out. Nobody has elected or consented to "journalists" having a constitional role. That being said, the constitution protects the people to talk amongst themselves, so that the electorate is itself effective, and can check power via the ballot box.
The issue at hand is the role of money in the "talk amongst yourselves" narrative. And its potential corrupting influence (bascially--buying vote for special interests and PR clients).
Watergate was an attack against half the US political establishment: one of the business party's two wings (as Chomsky puts it). Instructive because it's a minor attack against a powerful entity, so there's hell to pay.
We'd need to consider far worse attacks against the powerless.
For a non-Valley, non-VC, non-swing-for-the-fences (Sand Hill Road cookie cutter) startup, think about where your risks really lie (who is going to sue you; when; why; and for how much). If you have partners, then having someone walk you through all the 'what if things go wrong' stuff may be useful. If it's just you, then you can even postpone incorporation. As for tax - that's a nice problem to have, but it's not one that's going to loom large on day one (or even year one). I would be amazed if it made sense for the median startup to register any trademarks. And if you "need" patents, really drill down on what that "need" is (if it's just a tick-the-box exercise for eventual VC's, then one jurisdiction might be enough; if you need a global patent protection strategy to secure your fundamental business value, you're doing it wrong).
When you do hire a lawyer, get an estimate up front, make clear that you want to know in advance if the bill is getting anywhere near the estimate, and require monthly interim billing if there is something ongoing. If you can fit in some scornful laughter at the idea of billing for photocopying and phone calls, that would be good, too. Many lawyers pay lip-service to the idea of fixed fees for defined projects: think about calling their bluff. And ask about other value-added services they might provide, such as introductions to other clients who might be interesting to know. This will be like pulling teeth, because lawyers are pretty terrible at everything in business except (if you are lucky) the legal stuff.
But they probably do know the legal stuff better than you, so don't try to impose irrelevant constraints, like "I want a one-pager for this".
I'm not so sure about the trademark thing. I've just started that process with my partners non-tech new business. Here (in Australia) you can do a bunch of searches online, and enter a trademark application on a government website for $120, and if it;s approved you pay $300 for 10 years trademark protection. Once you've got all your domain name / twitter handle / social media accounts and pages lined up, a few hundred bucks for trademark protection in your area of business seems like money well spent to me, even if all it does is discourage someone from making a claim they've got more rights to a domain name or social media account name than you.
Of course that adice mostly applies to trademarking names which clearly have no existing claimants (or at least none in your area of business) which would complicate things enough to require law firm time to resolve...
Yep, trademarks are fairly self-service in Australia. Generally you can leave the lawyer out of it unless and until a dispute arises.
That being said, some lawyers only charge a pretty minimal amount over and above the underlying IP Australia fee and it can nice to delegate the paperwork to them.
If it's just you, then you can even postpone incorporation.
Or you could just form an S-Corporation, which is intended precisely for small companies, convert to a (classic) C-Corporation if and when necessary.
As for tax - that's a nice problem to have, but it's not one that's going to loom large on day one (or even year one).
Taxes will loom largely from the very first quarter, especially for unincorporated individuals. Income and business taxes are owed at least quarterly; sales taxes or VAT are owed biweekly, monthly, or quarterly depending on the jurisdiction. In this regard, incorporating is definitely a benefit, since any penalties for failure to timely pay taxes will accrue to the corporation and not to the individual owners.
When you do hire a lawyer, get an estimate up front, make clear that you want to know in advance if the bill is getting anywhere near the estimate, and require monthly interim billing if there is something ongoing.
Or just hire a lawyer that provides services for a fixed fee, as most startup laywers and small business lawyers already do. Monthly billing is standard practice; indeed, many malpractice insurers actually require lawyers to invoice clients monthly for risk management reasons.
If you can fit in some scornful laughter at the idea of billing for photocopying and phone calls, that would be good, too.
If you are paying hourly rates, this is a legitimate issue...unless you are the one initiating most of the phone calls. If you are paying a fixed fee, this is a non-starter.
Many lawyers pay lip-service to the idea of fixed fees for defined projects: think about calling their bluff.
If you sign an engagement letter providing for a fixed-fee, that is not a bluff. That is a binding legal contract, and a lawyer who violates that contract can get disbarred. If you mean that the lawyers market fixed fees but instead try to negotiate hourly fees, I suggest you call your local bar association and report them. Deceptive marketing is serious ethical breach in nearly every state, and can even result in disbarrment.
This will be like pulling teeth, because lawyers are pretty terrible at everything in business except (if you are lucky) the legal stuff.
Your lawyer is a businessman himself. Think about it: he runs his own (legal) consulting business. You are his client. He acquired you either through marketing, networking, or referral--in other words, the 3 primary means that any service provider acquires a customer. He handles his own costs, taxes, staff, everything. Unless he's brand-spanking new, he's almost certainly a better businessman than you, and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future. He's already making a profit. (In the real world, success is measured by profit, not eyeballs or signups.) But the economics of legal practice are different from those of a startup, so make sure he understands your economic concerns and can tailor his services to meet your needs.
