Boeing facing criminal charges?
#1
Boeing facing criminal charges?
Passengers on board the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max 9 that suffered a terrifying midair blowout in January have received a letter from the FBI saying they may be victims “of a crime.”
Attorney Mark Lindquist, who represents multiple passengers that were on Alaska Airlines flight 1282, shared with CNN the letter that the FBI office in Seattle sent to passengers on Tuesday.
Tha settlement, which was criticized by families of crash victims and members of Congress, was over charges that Boeing defrauded the Federal Aviation Administration during the original certification process for the 737 Max jets. Boeing agreed to pay $2.5 billion as part of that settlement, but most of that was money Boeing had already agreed to pay to the airlines that had purchased the Max jets grounded for 20 monthsfollowing the Ethiopian Air crash and an earlier crash in Indonesia.
The deferred prosecution agreement could have ended the threat of Boeing facing criminal liability for those earlier fraud charges. But the Alaska Air incident came just days before a three-year probation-like period was due to end, so the criminal probe could expose Boeing to charges not just for the Alaska Air incident but also the earlier allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
Attorney Mark Lindquist, who represents multiple passengers that were on Alaska Airlines flight 1282, shared with CNN the letter that the FBI office in Seattle sent to passengers on Tuesday.
Boeing’s potential criminal liability
But Justice opened a probe into the incident and Boeing in February, CNN has previously reported. That investigation carries the potential to upend a controversial deferred prosecution agreement that Boeing reached with the Justice Department in the final month of the Trump administration.Tha settlement, which was criticized by families of crash victims and members of Congress, was over charges that Boeing defrauded the Federal Aviation Administration during the original certification process for the 737 Max jets. Boeing agreed to pay $2.5 billion as part of that settlement, but most of that was money Boeing had already agreed to pay to the airlines that had purchased the Max jets grounded for 20 monthsfollowing the Ethiopian Air crash and an earlier crash in Indonesia.
The deferred prosecution agreement could have ended the threat of Boeing facing criminal liability for those earlier fraud charges. But the Alaska Air incident came just days before a three-year probation-like period was due to end, so the criminal probe could expose Boeing to charges not just for the Alaska Air incident but also the earlier allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
https://youtu.be/G0SwI1LwTtY?si=YAOERHIUuicvD_JJ
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,479
Russians nailed a 777 over Ukraine and paid not one ruble in compensation. No killers brought to justice. A Chinese lab bat flued the global economy into a tailspin, millions dead. Same liability exposure, criminal charges none. Did BA renege on its agreement to self certify exercising best practice due diligence, beyond a shadow of ‘criminal’ doubt? Who stands accused exactly? If, big if, this goes to trial, the prosecution better resemble a Gatling gun crew.
#3
Yes it's probably posturing but who knows with subpoenas and warrants they might find some more incriminating emails.
Finding a corporation "criminally" liable is basically just another angle of attack for regulators. But who knows, if they come up with a smoking gun they might actually find a real live human criminal who can be convicted. That would be good IMO... I don't think companies can really commit "crimes". I think people commit crimes, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a corporate veil.
Finding a corporation "criminally" liable is basically just another angle of attack for regulators. But who knows, if they come up with a smoking gun they might actually find a real live human criminal who can be convicted. That would be good IMO... I don't think companies can really commit "crimes". I think people commit crimes, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a corporate veil.
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,479
Yes it's probably posturing but who knows with subpoenas and warrants they might find some more incriminating emails.
Finding a corporation "criminally" liable is basically just another angle of attack for regulators. But who knows, if they come up with a smoking gun they might actually find a real live human criminal who can be convicted. That would be good IMO... I don't think companies can really commit "crimes". I think people commit crimes, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a corporate veil.
Finding a corporation "criminally" liable is basically just another angle of attack for regulators. But who knows, if they come up with a smoking gun they might actually find a real live human criminal who can be convicted. That would be good IMO... I don't think companies can really commit "crimes". I think people commit crimes, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a corporate veil.
It’s a precedent matter potentially impacting any number of operators, manufacturers & subs using letters of authorization to conduct checks on behalf of federal inspectors. Our entire routine surveillance system runs on it. So if the goal is to sell the world’s most unaffordable airframe, they’re clearly on the right path. Fly the friendly skies, offer that window seat to a lawyer.
#5
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,025
The regulation and the FAA's administrative punishment to enforce the regulation, is not the extend of the available penalty, which may flow well beyond, into criminal law.
Advising subjects that they are party to an investigation isn't posturing, and the FBI doesn't make a habit of revealing an investigation, or jeopardizing it by revealing it, simply for theater.
A mistake is not necessarily a criminal act, but neglect may be. The character of the problem may rise to the level of pursuing an executive, or may be restricted to a few actors. The FBI may be pursuing an investigation from other means, not limited to the Alaska incident. The Alaska passengers maybe central or tangential to that investigation. The FBI is not necessarily revealing the bigger picture, nor are they required to do so. The FBI may also be applying indirect pressure, for the purposes of an investigation; receipt of the letter does not necessarily mean that's the scope of the investigation.
Advising subjects that they are party to an investigation isn't posturing, and the FBI doesn't make a habit of revealing an investigation, or jeopardizing it by revealing it, simply for theater.
A mistake is not necessarily a criminal act, but neglect may be. The character of the problem may rise to the level of pursuing an executive, or may be restricted to a few actors. The FBI may be pursuing an investigation from other means, not limited to the Alaska incident. The Alaska passengers maybe central or tangential to that investigation. The FBI is not necessarily revealing the bigger picture, nor are they required to do so. The FBI may also be applying indirect pressure, for the purposes of an investigation; receipt of the letter does not necessarily mean that's the scope of the investigation.
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Posts: 986
Yes it's probably posturing but who knows with subpoenas and warrants they might find some more incriminating emails.
Finding a corporation "criminally" liable is basically just another angle of attack for regulators. But who knows, if they come up with a smoking gun they might actually find a real live human criminal who can be convicted. That would be good IMO... I don't think companies can really commit "crimes". I think people commit crimes, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a corporate veil.
Finding a corporation "criminally" liable is basically just another angle of attack for regulators. But who knows, if they come up with a smoking gun they might actually find a real live human criminal who can be convicted. That would be good IMO... I don't think companies can really commit "crimes". I think people commit crimes, and shouldn't be allowed to hide behind a corporate veil.
so, what incriminating emails?
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 343
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,479
Your conspiracy-minded point?
#10
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post