China Weighs Unprecedented Penalty for Didi After US IPO (bloomberg.com) 23
Chinese regulators are considering serious, perhaps unprecedented, penalties for Didi Global after its controversial initial public offering last month, Bloomberg News reported Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter. From a report: Regulators see the ride-hailing giant's decision to go public despite pushback from the Cyberspace Administration of China as a challenge to Beijing's authority, the people said, asking not to be named because the matter is private. Officials from the CAC, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of State Security, the Ministry of Natural Resources, along with tax, transport and antitrust regulators, began an investigation on-site at the company's offices, the cyberspace watchdog said in a statement. Regulators are weighing a range of potential punishments, including a fine, suspension of certain operations or the introduction of a state-owned investor, the people said. Also possible is a forced delisting or withdrawal of Didi's U.S. shares, although it's unclear how such an option would play out.
Deliberations are at a preliminary phase and the outcomes are far from certain. Beijing is likely to impose harsher sanctions on Didi than on Alibaba Group Holding, which swallowed a record $2.8 billion fine after a months-long antitrust investigation and agreed to initiate measures to protect merchants and customers, the people said. "It's hard to guess what the penalty will be, but I'm sure it will be substantial," said Minxin Pei, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California.
Deliberations are at a preliminary phase and the outcomes are far from certain. Beijing is likely to impose harsher sanctions on Didi than on Alibaba Group Holding, which swallowed a record $2.8 billion fine after a months-long antitrust investigation and agreed to initiate measures to protect merchants and customers, the people said. "It's hard to guess what the penalty will be, but I'm sure it will be substantial," said Minxin Pei, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California.
I'm really torn (Score:2, Offtopic)
On the one hand, it's the Chinese government - persecutor and killer of Uyghurs, harvester of the organs of political prisoners, and overall trampler upon human rights of every kind. On the other hand, they're demonstrating backbone in putting a boot on the necks of corporations, and not letting the tail wag the dog.
Gee - if only there was a middle ground where a principled, moral government looked after its citizens while yanking the leash on corporations who got too big for their britches. I'd say that th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Before anyone tries to defend China's treatment of Muslims, there are labour camps with a capacity for 1 million detainees [dailymail.co.uk].
That's nearly half of the number that the US detains (2.12 million in 2019). Just staggering and shameful for China.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm really torn (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that the US in the decade after World War II would be a somewhat reasonable template for a place to start anew
The US in the decade after WW2 was rather corrupt. During the war there was all kinds of corruption, and corporations were able to get away with over-charging for things (and even outright graft) because it was "for the war effort." The whole system was an old-boys-club which is portrayed in Mad Men. Granted, it was still an improvement over the graft during the 20s, like the Teapot Dome scandal. Or the political bosses where dead people voting actually did sway elections.
You may say it was great for workers because unions were stronger. But the golden age of unions had already passed by the 50s. In that era, mafiosos were starting to take over the unions because they saw them as a useful power structure. And they were.
You might like that tax rates were higher in the 50s, but that was just on paper. In reality, the corruption allowed loopholes so big that only a few unlucky people were ever forced to pay the top rate.
In short, anyone who says "the past was a great place, better than now" probably doesn't know much history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where did the GP talk about merits? Looks like he was only talking about balls, something the US government lacks when dealing with corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the GP talking about whether it's good or bad to bully? Look you seem to be having a completely different conversation than everyone else. I suggest maybe you start a new thread if you want to raise these topics.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're saying government abuse is a separate topic ??
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Paragraphs contain much needed context around the topic of discussion. The context is weighing human atrocities against a government that actually has the balls to stand up to corporations.
Anything beyond that you're making up.
If you were a superhero your name would be "Take Sentences Out Of Context Man" and your superpower would be having conversations with yourself.
And ... (Score:1)
... in the U.S., there are jealous sighs from those who wish they could do the same things with our corporations.
(Well, wish they could do the same things more thoroughly ... and openly.)
One of these days... (Score:4, Insightful)
withdrawal of Didiâ(TM)s U.S. shares
although itâ(TM)s unclear
Iâ(TM)m sure it will be substantial
sigh
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, don't rush them. I'm pretty sure Unicode support on Slashdot articles is a sign of the apocalypse.
"Controversial" (Score:2)
Already predicted that they'll start nationalizing companies soon, and they near have already with ever more state f