Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Legal Loophole Offers Volkswagen Criminal Immunity

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-walk-away dept.

An anonymous reader writes: According to the Wall Street Journal (paywalled) a loophole in the 1970 Clean Air Act could make it impossible for U.S. prosecutors to subject Volkswagen to criminal charges over its use of standards-dodging 'defeat devices' in its emissions-testing software. Prosecutors are now reported to be considering alternative methods, including (considerably lesser) charges that Volkswagen lied to regulation authorities.

11 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. TFA, TFS by war4peace · · Score: 4, Informative

    None of which explain what exactly is the loophole.
    "There's a loophole there" - is all I could get. the WSJ article is paywalled.
    Any ideas? IANAL so, to me, it's a mystery.

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:TFA, TFS by trollingaround · · Score: 3, Informative

      None of which explain what exactly is the loophole. "There's a loophole there" - is all I could get. the WSJ article is paywalled. Any ideas? IANAL so, to me, it's a mystery.

      Yeah, basically "the clause in the act indemnifies car manufacturers against criminal penalties". A non-paywalled linked with a bit more info: http://www.wsj.com/articles/vo...

    2. Re:TFA, TFS by Turnerj · · Score: 3, Informative

      Speaking of loopholes and the WSJ paywall, you can actually get around it by Googling part of the URL.

      This is the WSJ URL: http://www.wsj.com/articles/vo...
      Google this: volkswagen-may-not-face-environmental-criminal-charges

      Then just click the first link for WSJ. I assume they are blindly checking the referrer. I have tried this on various other news sites that paywall with success.

      I briefly read the article though, nothing particularly useful.

    3. Re:TFA, TFS by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not really a loophole. Instead it was a conscious decision about how to enforce the Clean Air Act by the lawmakers who made it. They felt that criminal prosecutions would be hard to win, so opted to use the civil lawsuit system instead.

      FTPWA:

      Former Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.), a longtime congressman and auto industry ally who helped pass the Clean Air Act, said in an interview that the law focused on civil penalties because theyâ(TM)re easier to enforce. âoeItâ(TM)s easier, speedier, quicker,â he said. Mr. Dingell predicted Volkswagen will face billions of dollars in costs regardless. âoeThe cost to Volkswagen is going to be unbelievable,â he said. Volkswagen has set aside $7.3 billion to cover the fallout from the emissions scandal. âoeThe risk of them going out of business is very real.â

      I'm sure many people read the headline and assumed it meant VW is off the hook. It isn't. It's just no VW executives, or for that matter software developers, will be going to jail. VW will, however, be paying absolutely massive fines. Which is probably what you expected anyway.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:TFA, TFS by swright · · Score: 5, Informative

      What fraud? The car performed as advertised, right?

      Actually it didn't. Emissions are part of advertised specs. In the UK at least, this is an important figure because it determines how much annual road tax you have to pay to drive the thing - i.e. its important to consumers making the decision....and its really important to the UK government who have arguably been defrauded out of a whole bunch of tax revenue.

  2. Re:Just makes them look even more guilty by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Informative

    you mean following the law is "worming out of it"?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  3. VW had this "end game" planned out, too by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Informative

    part of the deal to get the CAA passed was to eliminate criminal consequences for the car manufacturers. it was ALREADY known.

  4. Re:Well... by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well it already got the CEO of the company to resign. I'm sure he's rich and not going to lose much, but he presumably didn't want to be forced to resign and go into retirement.

    I suppose worse could have been done to him, but its hard to say that this had zero effect on upper management.

  5. Congress can lie by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here, fraud presents itself quite naturally and they can't seem to find it.

    Perhaps they are worried that the US government could be charged with fraud too since it seems they passed an act which they said would make it illegal for car manufacturers to make highly polluting cars but which, it appears, does nothing of the sort.

    Congress has immunity from lying. No, really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  6. Re:Could send them to jail by x0ra · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think you don't know how the legal system works. Prosecutors file an arm long list of plausible charges, hoping than one or two will stick...

  7. I'm not a lawyer by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    But section 203(a)3(B) of the Clear Air Act is the one that mentions defeat devices.

    and the punishment for violating that,

    SEC. 205. CIVIL PENALTIES. .....
    any person who violates section
    203(a)(3)(B) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than
    $2,500

    No criminal charges, only $2,500 per car.