due process

[jamned]

Recently, I've been intrigued with the story of David Ji, cofounder of Apex digital. You might know the name Apex from Best Buy and Circuit City ads for cheap dvd players. David has been held in China for approximately the last year because *his company* owes 150 to 450 million dollars to another Chinese *company*He's yet to be charged in a

Comments

[arichi]

I can't pretend to understand China's corporate laws, but the U.S. has regularly imprisoned higher-ups in companies who run afoul of more politically connected competitors.

By the way - Padilla was charged with three crimes, one of which (IIRC) was criminal conspiracy.

[arichi]

Anyway, you're right; I didn't mean the above to sound challenging. What you probably don't like about the Ji situation is that what he has "done" is beyond his control. You probably believe (as I do) in the notion of an LLC, which means that officers and employees of a corporation cannot be held liable (criminally or civilly) for actions that the company performs. It is important to note that they can (and should) still be held liable for actions that _they_ perform, even in "the name of" the company. For example, Ji shouldn't be held personally liable for his company's debt, but if he were to kill someone in order to clear the debt, that is valid to hold him for, even if he did it on behalf of Apex.

[I'm not saying he killed anyone. It's just an example]

[jamned]

I know you weren't challenging, though I certainly don't mind a debate (you seem to have become a little evasive of lj debates lately, btw). I agree with you on both of your points. It does describe my feelings about the situation, though I think what I was getting at earlier was assuming that someone is guilty until proven innocent. That seemed common to both Ji and Padilla. Those assumptions may prove to be right, but the process is still disagreeable to me

[arichi]

I agree with you on the conspiracy thing. I've lately avoided LJ debates, and RL debates, because I've found them boring. Don't take it personal; I don't find you boring. There's also a slight issue of time, but that's going to be more relevant in Winter quarter than it is in Fall.

I'm surprised that the guy had the impression that America is primarily black. NBA might play a role here; perhaps we watches Yao Ming and assumes that Yao is surrounded by a population indicative of America?

Isn't Western China largely non-Chinese, though? But if they define their state by their race, it would make sense that they see Taiwan as part of them.

[jamned]

Re: debates--No offense taken.

Most of western China is Chinese. There are large provinces which have their own ...indigenous populations--the Tibet and Xinjiang provinces, with the Tibetans and Uighers respectively. Unfortunately, these populations hardly represent the majority in those areas now. The Chinese (also referred to as the Han Chinese, as they consider Tibetans and Uighers to be "Chinese" because they live in a part of China) have moved into Tibet and Xinjiang in large bulk. There's lots more open space in these provinces and the government offers incentives for Han families that move to these areas--much like how the American government offers incentives for people to live in Alaska. Both these provinces are supposed to be autonomously governed, but Han Chinese make up most of the government in both regions.

...To answer your question briefly, no =P