> she believes the firm overcharged taxpayers by at least $500 million
> Booz Allen last month admitted no wrongdoing while paying a $377 million settlement
Sounds like a cool way to wash $123M of theft. I wish I could steal stuff, give back 2/3 of that, and walk away Scott free.
Also we're missing half of the story there, because there's no way they sent $Bs worth of invoice with overpriced rates without at least an accountant noticing, and being shutoff by some chain of command.
It is 'scot-free' apparently, and interestingly has nothing to do with the Scottish, it seems:
> Etymology
From Middle English scotfre, from Old English scotfrēo (“scot-free; exempt from royal tax or imposts”), equivalent to scot (“payment; contribution; fine”) + -free.[1]
>Sounds like a cool way to wash $123M of theft. I wish I could steal stuff, give back 2/3 of that, and walk away Scott free.
Settlements are often used when the case is complex and both parties aren't sure of the outcome. Rather than spend millions in legal fees fighting it out, they meet in the middle and settle for the expected value of the lawsuit. A toy example would be if the plaintiff thought the defendant owed them $100M worth of damages, but also thinks there's also a 50% chance of winning. Rather than spending millions on legal bills and possibly winning, they settle for $50M, which is better for everyone involved. Yes, it's not satisfying to think "bad guy got away with it and only paid 50%", but keep in mind that victory isn't assured, and it's very possible that the outcome if it went to trial was "bad guy got away with it and paid 0%".
The reason why this doesn't happen with thefts is that they're simple cases that don't require drawn out legal battles. A far better example that people would understand are car accidents. Someone rear-ends you and causes $10k worth of damage. The other driver therefore owes you $10k, right? But no, the other person alleges that you cut him off, and therefore you're partially at fault. Rather than battling it out in court racking up billable hours @ >$200/hr for both sides, you (or your insurance) meet in the middle and settle for $5k. Yet, nobody would characterize this as "Sounds like a cool way to wash $10k of damage. I wish I could wreck stuff, give back 1/2 of that, and walk away Scott free.".
This system is then inherently favouring breaking the law because you will never pay more than the damage you caused, and since there's a nonzero chance you will win there's always an edge for the rule-breaking side
> Booz Allen last month admitted no wrongdoing while paying a $377 million settlement
Sounds like a cool way to wash $123M of theft. I wish I could steal stuff, give back 2/3 of that, and walk away Scott free.
Also we're missing half of the story there, because there's no way they sent $Bs worth of invoice with overpriced rates without at least an accountant noticing, and being shutoff by some chain of command.