I'm not. It was not an exchange. He neither knew about the money, nor expected it at the start. I think it would be more precise to say:
"Bank exec blew a whistle his company and got 3 years in minimum security prison. By coincidence he also got a lot of money afterwards."
Basically unless the whole story the whistleblower reported was fabricated, I don't think there's any situation where I'd be ok with the whistleblower being the only one jailed. As part of a larger group - sure, maybe.
Otherwise what's the point of whistleblowing? It would only work if you hate the company more than you like your current life. Or if you knew how to do it anonymously.
What do you mean he didn't know about it? He's a banking exec whistleblowing on tax evasion. The IRS bounty on recoveries is not exactly a secret. Even in the unlikely event that he himself wasn't aware of his prospects when he went in, you'd assume literally the very first thing any competent lawyer would have told him was "you stand to make a hundred million dollars if you go through with it".
The thing I like about the precedent? That banking executives need to be on their toes because all of their colleagues have an immense incentive to rat them out.
> (It is, however, extremely important to me that I make clear that I had no idea there was a law like this for a reward when I resigned from UBS in October 2005, as the law passed in December 2006.)
No, I still sort of agree with you. The law did pass after he started to whistleblow. However, he wasn't whistleblowing because they were a sneaky bank doing things like set up tax evasion schemes. He was whistleblowing because they set him up to take the blame for the damages. His next plan was to get immunity for all his crimes while screwing them and keeping his money. Had that document not formed or he seen it, he would've kept helping companies in their crimes (or shady stuff) in exchange for large paycheck at the bank.
So, he's still a piece of shit that doesn't give a damn about tax evasion doing it solely for himself. He got a great reward in the process anyway despite it backfiring a bit. Like you said above, I think it's probably a good trade so long as it didn't screw up his head in there. :)
He aided tax evasion for U.S. and other companies. IRS threatened to come after me for about $1.20 once. No kidding. This guy helping them disguise tens of millions to billions... who knows amount... in taxes they owed? "Did not deserve prison." Oh no, I think the scumbag did. His bosses deserved a longer sentence, too.
Although, they're doing what their country makes a lot of money on. So maybe heroes of private industry over there. ;)
Unless I'm misreading, he's a bank executive who smuggled diamonds internationally to held a Russian oligarch avoid US taxes. Why exactly are you immunizing him?
To clarify: I don't feel that he deserved prison for what he was accused of and eventually pled guilty to in a plea bargain, given the totality of the circumstances. Which was not, unless I'm misreading, anything to do with diamond smuggling.
Mind you, it's possible he plead guilty to what seems (to me) as vaguely absurd charges to avoid a much harsher penalty for the diamond smuggling and such.
I would do 3 years for $100MM. I would do the next three years for $100MM, and they're pretty important years in my family! Someone offer me $100MM to be imprisoned for the next three years; I will put my money where my mouth is on this.
if you assume a 4-5% return on the money, only want to live off the returns (not the principal) and "six figures" (say, $250,000) is enough as yearly, net income...the lowest a person would go is about USD$6.7MM (after tax, of course)
I'd do it for a cool million, possibly less. There's plenty of places around the US, let alone the world, where returns around $50,000 yearly or less would provide a comfortable life. Add the ability to supplement that with whatever work you care to perform and you can be more than comfortable.
EDIT: On further thought, I'd go for much less, I think. It's really just a comparison the money offered against A) the amount I'd expect to earn in those 3 years, B) expected loss of lifetime income due to the time lost and/or resulting stigmas, and C) personal discomfort/inconvenience of the lockup time.
Hard to figure the latter two, but I expect even half a million would tip the balance in my case.
Interesting thought but I would take the same deal as Thomas.
I also think your question can be generalized.
Waiting for the train, you hear the announcement "an uptown A train is 4 minutes away from west 4th st." "What if these are the last 4 minutes of my life?"
Waiting at a red light, looking at the countdown clock in the other direction: "What if these are the last three seconds of my life"?
When the time scale is seconds and you are in your middle age death is not what's on your mind. But when you're talking about years then that changes. Every year has a statistical likelihood of being your last, the older you get the bigger that chance (once you're out of infancy). Even if the distribution were flat then you'd be looking at something along the lines of 3/70th so roughly 4.5% or so for three years.
I've buried enough people in their middle age by now to not take the next three years for granted.
We're all wasting our time anyway. An hour a day of commuting, 8 hours of work, 4 minutes brushing your teeth, 8 hours sleeping, an hour here and there trolling Hacker News... there's half your life right there.
Look at it as getting paid $6,000 an hour to read books for three years. Not the worst gamble someone my age could take.
Think of it like a three-year, $100 million sabbatical "upstate." That is enough time to read through the great books. Room and board are covered and there is a commissary for personal items.
If I had to choose between a minimum security federal prison and 3-4 long-distance airline flights a week and living out of hotels (a not-unusual travel burden for the kinds of people who make 7 figures a year reliably), I would have absolutely no trouble picking "prison".
Remember: the premise here is that once you do your bit, you're set for life.
I used to see ads on TV for pardoning services, that implied that they could restore your ability to travel. Does anyone know if those actually work? If they do, then you might really be clear and free with a bit less than $100MM after, say, 5 years.
Any real "pardoning" service at that level is simply a very good, high-priced law firm. And yeah, they do "work." AKA they file the correct legal paperwork and navigate the bureaucracy better than your average citizen.
Federal charges can only be pardoned by the president, are limited in number, and don't expunge your record with very few exceptions. You still need to report the conviction, and still need to ask various states for "forgiveness" to restore your rights.
Personally, I'd stick to the PowerBall for a get rich quick dream.
I'm pretty OK with that precedent!