VW Engineer Sentenced To 40-Month Prison Term In Diesel Case (reuters.com) 133
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A federal judge in Detroit sentenced former engineer James Liang to 40 months in prison on Friday for his role in Volkswagen AG's multiyear scheme to sell diesel cars that generated more pollution than U.S. clean air rules allowed. U.S. District Court Judge Sean Cox also ordered Liang to pay a $200,000 fine, 10 times the amount sought by federal prosecutors. Cox said he hoped the prison sentence and fine would deter other auto industry engineers and executives from similar schemes to deceive regulators and consumers. Prosecutors last week recommended that Liang, 63, receive a three-year prison sentence, reflecting credit for his months of cooperation with the U.S. investigation of Volkswagen's diesel emissions fraud. Liang could have received a five-year prison term under federal sentencing guidelines. Liang's lawyers had asked for a sentence of home detention and community service.
Lol VW engineer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
scot
Re: (Score:1)
You guys aren't even noticing the biggest fraud... (Score:1)
I drive a 2001 VW diesel car. Still runs good as new after 16+ years. Still perfectly legal, because it was manufactured before the EPA arbitrarily changed the emissions goal posts to shut VW's diesel cars out of the USA car market.
How can domestic companies compete with VW cars that get better fuel mileage, longer range, and never break? They can't! THAT is why we're seeing this smackdown on VW.
Go read the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. The USA companies are attempting to succeed, not through superior
Re:You guys aren't even noticing the biggest fraud (Score:4)
No, he was sent to jail because VW lied about it on three separate occasions to US regulators and got caught on discrepancies multiple times over the course of a decade. It was the final time that the exact nature of their corruption was uncovered and what they got the smackdown for.
Re:You guys aren't even noticing the biggest fraud (Score:4, Informative)
Great book, but not really relevant to this issue. At least not in the way you presented. US companies are subject to the same regulations as VW, so this isn't really favoritism for financial advantage to US companies. What you could say however, is that it pushes along the fall of Europe to fascist communist rule, since the actual people responsible are not facing charges or jail. Those people remain free and wealthy, while the lackey gets jack booted.
Re: (Score:1)
Last time I checked, US manufacturers didn't make any diesel cars, but they made plenty of diesel pickup trucks. Meanwhile, VW was making diesel cars, but no pickup trucks. The EPA's diesel regulations applied to diesel cars, but did not apply to diesel pickup trucks. No favoritism there! Uh huh...
Go ahead, let them pull the wool over your eyes. Keep towing that party line, comrade...
Software freedom helps us breathe cleaner air. (Score:2)
More importantly for the public: the golden parachute and engineer's imprisonment does nothing to give affected cars (not just VWs) control of the cars they "own". The car's software should be published, sent to each registered owner in source and binary forms with complete build instructions and licensed under a free software license (I suggest the GPLv3 or later).
This means Brad Kuhn's warning still holds true: Software Freedom Doesn't Kill People, Your Security Through Obscurity Kills People [ebb.org] and vehicle
Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The engineer gets prosecuted for decisions signed off by the executives?
Re: (Score:2)
The engineer gets prosecuted for decisions signed off by the executives?
Wait what? The hitman gets a murder charge for decisions signed off by his employer?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think his point was that the engineer is the one who wrote the code (metaphorically, he pulled the trigger) and so it's not silly to prosecute him. It doesn't matter if he was doing it on orders. Just like how a hitman should be prosecuted for doing the hit, and it doesn't matter that he was doing it on orders.
In both cases, the one who gave the orders should be prosecuted as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitman is a bit of a different trade than Engineer.
In either case, if he knew what he was told to do was illegal, then he can't get off by using the "Nuremberg Defense" that he was "just following orders".
Re: (Score:2)
You should always say no if it's immoral or unethical. But when it comes to this situation? If the boss said 'just do it', I'd do it and look for another job.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they tried that defense in Nuremburg. It didn't go over so well.
Re: (Score:2)
You always have a choice. You document the request for the illegal thing, refuse to do it, and if you get fired, you sue for a juicy payout.
Firing someone for refusing an illegal request is illegal in and of itself.
It's not going to affect your employment prospects with any company worth working for. In fact, in a lot of companies, it will enhance them -- there really are lots of companies who value employees who act ethically.
Re: (Score:2)
"Can no one rid me of this meddlesome USEPA test requirement?"
Document away - it would take a very determined prosecutor to even get that through a US grand jury as an indictable statement. Also, the trend in the US is for individual whistleblowers to (a) be ignored by the investigative authorities (b) then criminally prosecuted for 'theft of empl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about whistleblowing. I'm talking about suing for wrongful termination. No grand jury (and rarely any normal jury) is involved.
The level of evidence required isn't even that high. All you'd really need (assuming that you have a reasonably good employment record) is an email or memo exchange showing that you were told to do something obviously illegal and that you refused to do it, and that you were fired or otherwise punished afterwards.
Re: (Score:2)
The level of evidence required isn't even that high. All you'd really need (assuming that you have a reasonably good employment record) is an email or memo exchange showing that you were told to do something obviously illegal and that you refused to do it, and that you were fired or otherwise punished afterwards.
Which is why these conversations are always done face to face.
Re: (Score:2)
I never work without a paper trail. I've worked at places where the engineering process was so sketchy that work was allowed to proceed without a paper trail, but even then, I have always made sure that I send an email to my supervisor after the verbal request, stating clearly what I understand the job to be, and asking if that's correct.
That should be standard practice for every engineer -- not as a CYA so much as because verbal requests are easily misunderstood, and it's to everyone's benefit if it's clea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. That's why documentation is important.
Re: (Score:2)
That's legally dangerous in the US, with its weak worker protection laws. In Germany, I suspect it would be a really really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it's done. How exactly do you plan to sue again? Have you forgotten that management entirely controls
Re: (Score:2)
You get a memo requesting updates on your work, and a verbal follow up ordering the tampering.
As I said, I would write that verbal change order into an email that I send to the person who made the change order, asking them to acknowledge that my understanding of the work to be done is correct.
And, to be honest, I shouldn't even have to do that. Any competent software house does not allow work to be done without a paper trail detailing the work to be done. The amount of misunderstanding this avoids can save a ton of money and improve product quality.
That's how it's done. How exactly do you plan to sue again?
Because that's not how I'd allow it to be done. If
Re: (Score:1)
It's not going to affect your employment prospects with any company worth working for. In fact, in a lot of companies, it will enhance them -- there really are lots of companies who value employees who act ethically.
( Wow, are you really that stu... ) Read [kiplinger.com]
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
To convict a single "engineer" is laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The executives should have been prosecuted too, but they may have been more careful to cover their tracks.
That said, if an engineer does something he knows is illegal, then he should be prosecuted for it -- even if he was ordered to do it by his superiors.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the rub, how do you prove someone knows something is illegal, outside of the most obvious things like rape and murder? I would never have assumed these defeat devices were illegal, I thought this was going to play out in civil court as an issue about false advertising and compensating owners.
Re: (Score:2)
I would never have assumed these defeat devices were illegal
Why wouldn't you assume that? The code had no other purpose than to lie to federally required certification. If used for that certification, that is obviously fraud, which is obviously illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The engineer gets prosecuted for decisions signed off by the executives?
That surprises you? Honestly, I'd be more surprised if the executives were actually charged with anything other than holding up a round of golf.
Re: (Score:1)
The constant "serve as an example" bullshit needs to stop as it doesn't to those who most need the object lesson. Maybe the judge is trying a "pour encourager les autres" approach but forgets that the phrase came about when an admiral was executed. In this instance a midshipman was executed and the admirals couldn't care less.
Re:Wait what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The engineer gets prosecuted for decisions signed off by the executives?
Speaking as an engineer -- hell yes.
You expect managers to be dishonest, craven bastards. But an engineer is supposed to have integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
But an engineer is supposed to have integrity.
More importantly, his bridges and buildings better had integrity!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's still likely to happen. Someone from management was arrested in May due to the scandal.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why the company ought to have its hide nailed to the wall. An engineer is allowed to be a bastard, but if he's a liar, he's not a fricken' engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
An engineer is allowed to be a bastard, but if he's a liar, he's not a fricken' engineer.
That's brilliant (and accurate). I'm going to start using that.
Re: (Score:1)
I think there is plenty of dishonesty to go around.
Re: (Score:3)
The engineer gets prosecuted for decisions signed off by the executives?
That's why an engineer who puts extra effort into doing a great job is rewarded with a laser-printed certificate of achievement in a handsome plastic frame, while an exec who gives the order to fudge on emissions testing walks away with millions because the implementing engineer was one who drew the legal lightning bolt.
Re: (Score:2)
The engineers that I know who consistently put in effort that results in exceptionally good work get rewarded through being paid extra well.
If that's not true where you work, I strongly encourage you to look around for a better job. Great engineers are hard to find and in demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was just following orders hasn't been a valid defence since at least the 40s.
Re: (Score:2)
James Liang was a manager. The fact that he happened to have an engineering degree makes all the media outlets report him as being an engineer.
He was not some guy who just acted under orders.
I'm all for harsh penalties here... (Score:3, Insightful)
...but $200,000 for an engineer combined with the 40 months? If they're going to do that to the engineer following instructions, then they better be much harsher on the executives and managers that told the engineer to do it in the first place.
Re:I'm all for harsh penalties here... (Score:5, Insightful)
A federal judge in Detroit ...
Something tells me he isn't very happy with fraudulently marketed imported cars...
Re: (Score:2)
People died. They died from respiratory problems, heart failure or stroke, because that's what air pollution does. We don't know the names of the people that died, they are just a statistic, and we would have a hard time getting a reliable estimate of how many people died. Maybe just a few. Maybe hundreds. But people did die, and this guy made it happen.
Tell me again that 40 months is harsh.
Throw another pleeb under the money bus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A senior manager was recently arrested. These things take time.
everyone should get an indemnification clause (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a construction engineer who at request of management signed off on a bridge wouldn't survive heavy wind
This is why you have a union, even as an engineer, if your employer is instructing you to commit fraud, you might have to sue (a strong union will have the expertise to handle such a scenario).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an automotive engineer but it seems like these defeat devices aren't actually illegal, just misleading. The cars meet the emissions requirements when driven in a very specific way. How is that illegal? Just like if someone drives like a maniac all the time their gas mileage isn't going to be close to the advertised fuel efficiency of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
No indemnification clause will protect you when you knowingly do something wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess everyone needs an indemnification clause in their contract.
In many countries of the world you can't indemnify the acts of an engineer. Professional registration and legislation specific to engineering doesn't allow for that sort of thing.
Makes sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of what you pay an engineer to do is take responsibility for things. That's why you need a cert to call yourself a "Professional Engineer" Same concept as a bridge falling. Some technical person put his approval on it as the end-all, so that technical person takes responsibility. It's part of his/her job. I think the execs should all get smacked a little harder too, but this is fitting.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize the entire wing for emissions design was sectioned off and only accessible by top executives and people working on it. Right?
So management, by sectioning off their "illegal section" and keeping other employees from seeing it, is 100% DAMNING PROOF.
Re: (Score:1)
The thing is, if the cars meet the standards during the test, then they DO meet the standards right? Isn't that the purpose of the test? If the government cared and wanted to test real world conditions they could do so.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are an engineer working on emissions control software, part of your job is to have a knowledgeable layman's understanding of the applicable laws and regulations and also to know when you need to call Legal for an analysis of whether or not something you are designing fulfills said laws and regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
so his part of the job was fine by an engineering standpoint.
Producing something that broke the law was and is not fine from an engineering standpoint regardless of who asked him to do it. Part of being a professional engineer is ethics and having a spine.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of what you pay an engineer to do is take responsibility for things. That's why you need a cert to call yourself a "Professional Engineer" Same concept as a bridge falling. Some technical person put his approval on it as the end-all, so that technical person takes responsibility. It's part of his/her job. I think the execs should all get smacked a little harder too, but this is fitting.
I totally agree with this as long as the engineer receives financial compensation commensurate with the legal liabilities. However, in contrast to licensed professional engineers, other engineers don't have similar compensation, liability, or certifications.
All engineers should strive to perform their duties in an ethical manner, but that's not the same as assuming liability.
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel emissions have been tied to a considerable number incidents of cancer. This is a crime, and it is a crime that has victims.
Re: (Score:2)
where polluting the air is more of a serious offense then committing a crime
I don't think that committing a crime is worse than committing a crime.
Entrapment! (Score:1)
It's entirely possible that this engineer hated what he was doing, complained about it many times, and did everything he could to stop VW from doing this. Then they threatened to fire him and burn his career, and in a desperate situation, he caved in and did what management was asking.
It sucks when someone with power and/or authority orders you to do something unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks when someone with power and/or authority orders you to do something unethical.
It sure does! It sucks even more when you cave into those demands. Quitting would be a good thing under those circumstances -- or even better, just refuse to do it and let them fire you. Then you have actual recourse.
No matter what you do though, you are responsible for the actions you take.
Curious (Score:1)
That an engineer would have the ability to set policy for a multinational car company.
Re:Curious (Score:5, Interesting)
That an engineer would have the ability to set policy for a multinational car company.
FWIW, James Liang isn't just some lowly engineer who toiled in obscurity at VW, Liang was a key member of the team that developed the EA189 engine in 2006 at VW in Germany. When the team realized that the engine wouldn't meet US's new 2007 NOx emissions requirements, Liang lead the team that created the software defeat scheme. He was later transferred to the US to as VW’s “Leader of Diesel Compliance” and was apparently one of the engineering representative meeting directly with EPA and CARB officials when confronted with the evidence, they lied about the existence of the defeat device.
Apparently someone else on the team (an as of yet undisclosed collaborating witness VW employee) latter tipped off the CARB and decided to cooperate with the FBI investigation into the matter. Since Liang was the engineer at the meeting with the regulators, he is taking some of the blame (by all reports, he seems to be pretty remorseful about his role and is cooperating with the investigation).
Another twist in this whole saga, Oliver Schmidt, 48, who headed the company's regulatory compliance office in the U.S. and has also been arrested in this matter, apparently wrote an email to another VW manager explaining that one employee would not be coming to a meeting with California regulators "so he would not have to consciously lie." I think we can assume that the employee mentioned wasn't Engineer James Liang.
Well, that engineer should have the ability to not lie about implementing a specific policy on behalf of a multinational car company. Of course it would have probably taken steel balls to actually resist the pressure, it is still within one's ability...
Sometimes it just sucks to be you, but that is life.
I've not taken such a grand stand IRL, so I don't know the pressure, but I've take smaller stands, and I'm pretty sure my career has taken hits because of it. I don't have a high profile job, but at least I can sleep at night in my own bed. Sometimes you have to pick your own poison. There's a reason why some other folks get paid the big bucks...
Just food for thought.
As an Engineer (Score:3)
As an engineer, this is not surprising, but it is also disappointing. Given how dishonest VW has been, it would not surprise me to find out that they convinced this guy he was going to prison anyway (engineers have unseverable criminal liability in most modern countries regarding both fraud and willful negligence) and his family has a pallet of hundred dollar bills sitting in their garage (or in a Swiss bank account) to keep this engineer from testifying against middle and upper management, as well as a few C-level executives. There is no way that this happened in a vacuum without management knowing about it.
The couple of times I have been asked to do something morally questionable as an engineer and on several occasions when I saw a design error that presented the risk of death or great bodily injury, I made sure to follow up my concerns with a summarizing email to the the manager and his manager, and BCC myself on my personal email. The middle management squeals like a stuck pig over that kind of accountability, but engineers have a very real moral responsibility to protect society beyond most other professions. That has always resolved the issue, but I am always prepared to go directly to the CEO or if that doesn't work, state officials. When engineers don't have that level of commitment to protecting the public, scores of people can be injured or killed. In one instance, a space shuttle exploded.
Besides that, enriching someone else is the absolute dumbest reason I can think of to go to prison. Criminals in general are pretty stupid, but at least they have figured out that if you are going to rob a bank, you rob it for yourself, not stock holders or managers...
Please help my memory (Score:1)
The first conviction after two years - not bad! Now help my memory - how long took it the US justice system to jail the first banksters after the subprime mortgage scandal?
Sorry - my bad! I forgot that we apply quite different standards for banks.
Re: (Score:2)
Fiven that Fannie, Freddie, and Contrywide were in it up to their eyeballs, you'd have to start with the government itself.
He is an executive (Score:2, Informative)
I think the title of the slashdot article is misleading. While he was a VW Engineer he is currently a VW Executive. Also, he isn't the only one charged.
"U.S. prosecutors have charged eight current and former Volkswagen executives in connection with the diesel emissions cheating probe. Liang is one of the lowest-ranking executives charged so far."
Part of the reason they fined him and sentenced him to jail was his "pivotal" role in the fraud.
He has had 10 years to come clean and hasn't done it. So I thi
So Diesel is bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The pollution that you cause by driving your groceries home in any sort of fossil fuel car is way higher that the pollution from transporting the goods to the store. Semis and container ships don't actually pollute very much per kilogram of cargo.
That's not saying we shouldn't do something about the remaining diesel pollution. Several countries are already planning to phase out fossil fuel cars in just a few decades from now. If your country isn't, take it up with your politicians.
Sounds about right (Score:1)
But why the fuck would this deter any execs from doing this again?
They don't care about some engineer lackey. They need to throw the management in prison for 40 months.
setting a fine example (Score:2)
Liang was part of a long-term conspiracy that perpetrated a "stunning fraud on the American consumer," Cox said, as the defendant's family looked on in the courtroom. "This is a very serious and troubling crime against our economic system."
There is a very special club for those who are allowed to do that, and you're not in it, buddy.
Sure, punish the engineer. (Score:2)
Stupid court.
Because not one of the management had any clue what was actually going on, and didn't force him to do it?
Sure.
Prison term in diesel case? (Score:1)
Sounds like a very tight space
... gives a new meaning to the word "confinement".