> In his apology to Goldman Sachs and in an email to me on Friday, Mr. Watson attributed the incident to a mental health crisis and shared what he said were details of Mr. Rao’s diagnosis. “Samir is a valued colleague and a close friend,” Mr. Watson said. “I’m proud that we stood by him while he struggled, and we’re all glad to see him now thriving again.” He added that Mr. Rao took time off from work after the call and is now back at Ozy. Mr. Rao did not reply to requests for comment.
WTF?! This is immaterial on the company's value (it may be successful despite), but how is the individual in question still employed at the company?
I've gone through some low points, but never have I attempted to impersonate another company's executive in order certify traffic claims and secure funding.
> The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane during the commission of a crime, but they later regained their sanity after the criminal act was carried out. This legal defense is commonly used to defend individuals that have committed crimes of passion. The defense was first successfully used by U.S. Congressman Daniel Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key.
Of course the first successfull use would be a politician.
Yes, but a (even temporary, which is rarer than TV would lead you to believe) insanity plea typically requires institution at a mental health care facility.
It certainly doesn't just place the individual back in their old job.
He is still employed because the entire company, and their existing investors, were all in on the scam. If they make him the fall guy he will dish out dirt on them in return.
Yes this was a case of it being blatantly obvious, too. They should have gleefully thrown him under the bus, if only to allay suspicion. The fact they can't/won't screams complicity.
This males me wonder what else will develop from this now that they've gotten the attention they very much wanted to avoid.
> but how is the individual in question still employed at the company?
The company is worthless unless the founders realize their vision, and investors who were already suckered into funding it don't want to rock the boat, because it will make their entire investment evaporate.
If it’s a solid company run by ethically challenged people then the board can (and should) fire the terrible people and replace them with better people. If the company’s only “value” comes from the terrible people being in charge then it is indeed a terrible company.
Ah I see what you mean now. What you mean is this event doesn't technically mean the entire company is a scam that has no clicks. It's possible all their traffic is organic and uses iOS and loves clicking ads, just that the CEO and co-founders conspired to impersonate this YouTube exec. Yes, it could technically still be a valuable company.
WTF?! This is immaterial on the company's value (it may be successful despite), but how is the individual in question still employed at the company?
I've gone through some low points, but never have I attempted to impersonate another company's executive in order certify traffic claims and secure funding.
Jesus.