[upupupandaway]

One previous company I was CTO of got acquired by Amazon and they spent 60 days going through everything, including every line of code. I doubt a fraud of this caliber would have gone unnoticed with that kind of due diligence.

[vjvjvjvjghv]

Sometimes I wonder if there is a lot of scrutiny in small things but when things get large and complex they basically give up and wave it through.

I see a similar thing at my work in medical devices. In theory we have to validate all libraries we are using. So if you want to share some code you have to create a ton of documents. But when we use something like nodejs with hundreds of dependencies the whole process basically gets handwaved away because validating everything would be too much work.

[chatmasta]

I wouldn’t be surprised if they waved it through because “who would be dumb enough to provide us a fraudulent list of customers?” She was always going to be discovered once they tried to market to the list. So I could see them speedrunning due diligence under the assumption that, if it’s totally fraudulent, it will be obvious eventually and then we’ll sue her. The deal is not large enough to affect our bottom line, and the obvious risk of defrauding us makes it unlikely she’s defrauding us.

[brandall10]

It's not that complex, there was nothing technical here. You could say this was 'social engineering' at some level.

She pushed back against access to the customer list claiming privacy laws as a shield. JPMorgan was overly eager and didn't want to blow up the deal by challenging her.

[wat10000]

In programming, this is called bikeshedding. You present plans for some massively complicated industrial plant, and people will mostly skim it. Then you want to build a small bike shed for construction workers to use during the project, and now that they're presented with something understandable, everyone involved has to have input and the whole process drags out.