"A Hollywood director convicted of defrauding Netflix of $11m (£8.3m) last year has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.
Carl Erik Rinsch was accused of using Netflix funds intended to complete a science fiction series to buy cars, cryptocurrency and other luxuries for himself.
The 48-year-old, best known for the 2013 film 47 Ronin, was convicted of federal fraud and money laundering for misusing funds.
Rinsch faced up to 90 years in prison, but was expected to receive a lighter sentence.
Judge Jay Rakoff also sentenced Rinsch to three years of supervised release, $11m in forfeitures, and a $700 fine."
=================================
It must be nice to be rich. If you get cought, it’s just “oops I’ll give it back plus some pocket change.”
“Today’s sentence sends a deterrent message: Fraud will not be tolerated,” US Attorney Jay Clayton said in a statement.
What would you get as director who agreed to make something for Netflix then spent all the money on yourself instead?
Seems like a weird case. Not sure what would be justice here. Hell, I’m not sure deterrence even matters since this doesn’t ever seem to happen. Like, no one ever giving you a dime to make anything ever again is probably deterrent enough, no?
From the article:
"A Hollywood director convicted of defrauding Netflix of $11m (£8.3m) last year has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.
Carl Erik Rinsch was accused of using Netflix funds intended to complete a science fiction series to buy cars, cryptocurrency and other luxuries for himself.
The 48-year-old, best known for the 2013 film 47 Ronin, was convicted of federal fraud and money laundering for misusing funds.
Rinsch faced up to 90 years in prison, but was expected to receive a lighter sentence.
Judge Jay Rakoff also sentenced Rinsch to three years of supervised release, $11m in forfeitures, and a $700 fine."
=================================
It must be nice to be rich. If you get cought, it’s just “oops I’ll give it back plus some pocket change.”
“Today’s sentence sends a deterrent message: Fraud will not be tolerated,” US Attorney Jay Clayton said in a statement.
No it does not.
What sentence were you hoping for?
The same sentence I would get.
What would you get as director who agreed to make something for Netflix then spent all the money on yourself instead?
Seems like a weird case. Not sure what would be justice here. Hell, I’m not sure deterrence even matters since this doesn’t ever seem to happen. Like, no one ever giving you a dime to make anything ever again is probably deterrent enough, no?
Don’t know, seems like a victimless crime. Everyone should liberate funds from Netflix
You should look at what China or Vietnam do to corporate fraudsters and embezzlers.
I mean, usually it’s just the pocket change fine/tax. But yeah, must be nice