From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
To: sameer@c2.org
Message Hash: bbb749a56c98d73b6e09c9682f592a0b1b7041988221e3fd9a50766e508698d0
Message ID: <199604152212.PAA29987@usr5.primenet.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-16 03:00:16 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:00:16 +0800
From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:00:16 +0800
To: sameer@c2.org
Subject: Re: on corporations and subpoenas
Message-ID: <199604152212.PAA29987@usr5.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
** Reply to note from sameer@c2.org 04/15/96 11:00am -0700
= To: cypherpunks@toad.com
= Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
=
= Suppose a corporation has multiple subsidiaries.
=
= Would a subpoena served on the parent corp be binding on the
= subsidiaries?
=
yes, but not the other way around. (shit flows downhill!)
However, that's on face value also as a judge can order a parent
corporation (and its assets) to be subject to the order granted
against the subsidiary --e.g. the same principle would be sustained
until appeal --in other words, produce the "evidence" to convict
yourself and argue about it on appeal.
If that does not work, they will go for conspiracy charges,
which generally carry the same penalty as commiting the crime!
= Or would the better way to handle this be to create spinoff
= corporations rather than subsidiaries?
=
depends. if it is collection of S-corps, they are all lumped
together for tax purposes and the Fed goes right past the corporate
veil. If they are C-corps, the Fed ignores the fine line print on
corporate protection, etc.
secondly, prosecuters have a tendency to subpoena *individuals*
to produce records --easy to identify in small businesses,
subsidiary or "clustered." Even so, they can effectively take the
shotgun approach by naming the individual --i.e. whether the target
has the files at home, or company A-Z, it does not matter: produce
'em. I don't know about today, but 20 years ago I told them rather
obscenely which part of the anatomy they could use for their head
(and the horse they rode in on).
WARNING: I am not licensed to practice law in the State of
California, so take it for what it's worth.
--
Obscenity is a crutch for inarticulate motherfuckers.
Fuck the CDA!
cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Return to April 1996
Return to “attila <attila@primenet.com>”
1996-04-16 (Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:00:16 +0800) - Re: on corporations and subpoenas - attila <attila@primenet.com>