Reply #16: Right, your point is a hypothetical. Its just innuendo. [View All]

[K-W]

Of course foul play is possible, it is always possible.

The point is that if I were in a tax agency and I got orders to investigate a company's books, there's probably not a company sitting there that I couldn't justify investigating. No charges yet down such; just investigations. And they can be invasive and crippling in many ways.

Sure. How does this relate to Venezuala?

And I could investigate and question and investigate until I find enough stuff that could be construed to be illegal to file charges. Even if I lose. As bookkeeper (in charge of everything from data entry to preparing the year end financial statements for the board and CPA to review), I knew the tax law. Enough. But I'm sure that I didn't know everything in it that I could have run afoul of: there were hundreds of changes each year.

Large companies should have the resources to comply with even very complicated law codes, but regardless, what on earth does this have to do with Venezuala?

Remember: Arthur Anderson, in the end, wasn't guilty: unanimous SCOTUS verdict. But, in the meantime, the case hurt a lot of people's careers. A few of those people I knew from UCLA.

What does this have to do with Venezuala?

If a government wants to do serious harm to a person or company, they can. It's indistinguishable from honest to goodness law enforcement, until the end, when it's realized that the convictions are trivial, but had outsized (and very politically convenient) results.

Yes, this is hypothetically possible.

What does it have to do with Venezuala?