Bribery case against Apple security chief Thomas Moyer dismissed

AppleInsider

A Superior Court judge has dismissed a bribery charge against Apple security chief Thomas Moyer, which had alleged he donated iPads in return for concealed firearm permits.

Security Chief Thomas Moyer has been taking a leave of absence from Apple

Following a grand jury indictment against Moyer in November 2020, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Eric Geffon has now dismissed the case, citing a lack of evidence.

The allegation was that Moyer and, separately, insurance broker Harpreet Chadha offered bribes to Santa Clara Undersheriff Rick Sung and Captain James Jensen to receive concealed firearm (CCW) permits. A two-year District Attorney's Office investigation reported that Sung held up the permits until given "something of value."

In Moyer's case, the accusation was that the Apple security chief agreed to donate 200 iPads, worth around $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Apple did agree to that donation, which was then scrapped following the District Attorney's seizing permit records.

According to the Washington Post, Judge Geffon described the bribery allegation against Moyer as "pure speculation," and said it was "not supported by evidence presented to the grand jury."

He noted that Apple had verbally had confirmation that the permits would be issued, and that they had this information in June 2018.

"There is simply no evidence that suddenly, on February 8, 2019, Moyer was told or believed that the [concealed-weapons] permits would not be issued or released to the executive protection team unless the Sheriff's Office received something in exchange (such as a donation of iPads)," said Judge Geffon.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Moyer issued a statement thanking Apple and his family for standing by him. The security chief has been taking a leave of absence from Apple but hopes now to return to work and "move forward with my life."

Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen also issued a statement, claiming that his office still believes Moyer to be guilty.

"We believe that the criminal grand jury -- the 19 citizens who heard direct evidence and from witnesses in this public corruption case -- correctly indicted Mr. Moyer for bribery," said Rosen. "We stand by the grand jury's decision and are evaluating our options."

Apple has not commented on the ruling. There have been no statements on the related case concerning insurance broker Harpreet Chadha. However, the ruling does not affect the charges against Santa Clara Undersheriff Rick Sung and Captain James Jensen.

Follow all the details of WWDC 2021 with the comprehensive AppleInsider coverage of the whole week-long event from June 7 through June 11, including details of all the new launches and updates.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

longpath

It’s appalling that California would seek to prosecute a victim of extortion.

sconosciuto

now would be a good time for the good cops to come forward...

apmiller

Does anyone else find it surprising that the “executive protection team” members didn’t already have CCW’s individually before being hired, by virtue of being a trained security person? 

22july2013

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

sconosciuto

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

edited June 2021

22july2013

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

muthuk_vanalingam

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

So, you don't know the difference between "Gun Control" and "Complete ban of Guns", isn't it?

mplsp

muthuk_vanalingam said:

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

So, you don't know the difference between "Gun Control" and "Complete ban of Guns", isn't it?

Exactly. There’s a difference between opposing guns and recognizing that they are needed in certain circumstances. 

longpath said:

It’s appalling that California would seek to prosecute a victim of extortion.

That was my thought - what about the sheriff who allegedly asked for the bribe?

verne arase

22july2013 said:

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

Don't be an ass ... gun control is designed to keep guns out the hands of crazies ... not law enforcement or security personnel.

The only way to keep the public (or celebrities) safe is an armed protection detail, whether public or private.

sdw2001

verne arase said:

22july2013 said:

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

Don't be an ass ... gun control is designed to keep guns out the hands of crazies ... not law enforcement or security personnel.

The only way to keep the public (or celebrities) safe is an armed protection detail, whether public or private.

And gun control does nothing of the kind.  That's the issue.  In fact, I argue that gun control makes gun violence worse (and I'm not a gun owner myself).  

sdw2001

They say a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich.  Apparently they are correct.  Unless there is more direct evidence we're just not hearing about, this seems like the appropriate move.  Not only is there no actual evidence of a quid pro quo, but they charged the would-be victim of what can only be described as alleged extortion by the Sheriff's department.  Moreover, even if there was an agreement to expedite the permits, or if the department was slow-walking them until they got their "donation," that would not seem to be illegal...certainly not for Moyer.  

Another take on this is....really? This is what the prosecution is worried about? Let's assume all the allegations are true.  Apple's head of security gets a few hundred iPads donated to the Sheriff's department in exchange for CCW permits for Apple security.  I mean, it's a little slimey, but it's how things work.  It's called good business and good community relations.  "Hey Tom, we'll get those permits to you, no problem.  But could you guys maybe help us out? We'd really like to get the officers iPads."  So Moyer decides to approach Apple and ask if they can donate 200 iPads. Apple agrees, because it's their global headquarters' county Sheriff and 200 iPads is a small price to pay for a good relationship.  I'm sorry...where is the crime here, exactly?  

ronn

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

Hmmmm, I wonder if there's a reason why they may need armed security 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/21/21147011/apple-ceo-tim-cook-stalker-aggressive-executives-palo-alto-police-restraining-order

"Apple won a temporary restraining order against a man who allegedly stalked and harassed CEO Tim Cook and other company executives."

chadbag

muthuk_vanalingam said:

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

So, you don't know the difference between "Gun Control" and "Complete ban of Guns", isn't it?

You mean, do as I say and not as I do?  

Gun Control means hitting your target, not disarming people you don’t like.  Not Disarming people who have a right to self defense. 

Apple and Tim Cook is extremely hypocritical  

muthuk_vanalingam

chadbag said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/apple-ceo-tim-cook-calls-us-inaction-on-gun-control-insanity.html

The unicode consortium has a pistol as one of its emojis, but Apple refuses to let its users access that emoji, by replacing it with a water pistol. Apple censors its users from even using the pistol emoji in our speech, but Apple uses the same weapons in real life as a corporate policy.

https://www.engadget.com/2016-08-04-microsoft-new-real-gun-emoji.html/
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/apples-new-squirt-gun-emoji-hides-big-political-statement/

So, you don't know the difference between "Gun Control" and "Complete ban of Guns", isn't it?

You mean, do as I say and not as I do?  

Gun Control means hitting your target, not disarming people you don’t like.  Not Disarming people who have a right to self defense. 

Apple and Tim Cook is extremely hypocritical  

So, you didn't read the other post by @MplsP who expanded on what I meant? Please go back and read post #8 in this thread and then comment again.

jungmark

sdw2001 said:

They say a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich.  Apparently they are correct.  Unless there is more direct evidence we're just not hearing about, this seems like the appropriate move.  Not only is there no actual evidence of a quid pro quo, but they charged the would-be victim of what can only be described as alleged extortion by the Sheriff's department.  Moreover, even if there was an agreement to expedite the permits, or if the department was slow-walking them until they got their "donation," that would not seem to be illegal...certainly not for Moyer.  

Another take on this is....really? This is what the prosecution is worried about? Let's assume all the allegations are true.  Apple's head of security gets a few hundred iPads donated to the Sheriff's department in exchange for CCW permits for Apple security.  I mean, it's a little slimey, but it's how things work.  It's called good business and good community relations.  "Hey Tom, we'll get those permits to you, no problem.  But could you guys maybe help us out? We'd really like to get the officers iPads."  So Moyer decides to approach Apple and ask if they can donate 200 iPads. Apple agrees, because it's their global headquarters' county Sheriff and 200 iPads is a small price to pay for a good relationship.  I'm sorry...where is the crime here, exactly?  

Seriously? What if it was “hey I’ll clear your multiple parking violations here for a new Mac donation”. 

ronn

Moyer was collateral damage in the fight between the DA's office and the Sheriff's Office. The fact that Apple came out early in support of Moyer was telling.

dysamoria

Am I the only one who gets a sense that someone is protecting the sheriff’s office? Like this is a “management sides with management” kind of issue, where prosecuting the security guy would imply wrongdoing at the sheriff’s office, so they’re not going to go there.

I’m not interested in the pro/anti-gun commentary here. It’s irrelevant; people are repurposing comments made by Cook to frame him as their enemy on “gun rights”.

sconosciuto

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

I see, so you thought you were making some sort of sick burn. HURR HURR HURR GABBY GIFFORDS HATES GUNS BUT HER HUSBAND MARK KELLY OWNED A GUN THIS ONE TIME Alrighty then. Hope you stretched properly before that reach.

sdw2001

jungmark said:

sdw2001 said:

They say a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich.  Apparently they are correct.  Unless there is more direct evidence we're just not hearing about, this seems like the appropriate move.  Not only is there no actual evidence of a quid pro quo, but they charged the would-be victim of what can only be described as alleged extortion by the Sheriff's department.  Moreover, even if there was an agreement to expedite the permits, or if the department was slow-walking them until they got their "donation," that would not seem to be illegal...certainly not for Moyer.  

Another take on this is....really? This is what the prosecution is worried about? Let's assume all the allegations are true.  Apple's head of security gets a few hundred iPads donated to the Sheriff's department in exchange for CCW permits for Apple security.  I mean, it's a little slimey, but it's how things work.  It's called good business and good community relations.  "Hey Tom, we'll get those permits to you, no problem.  But could you guys maybe help us out? We'd really like to get the officers iPads."  So Moyer decides to approach Apple and ask if they can donate 200 iPads. Apple agrees, because it's their global headquarters' county Sheriff and 200 iPads is a small price to pay for a good relationship.  I'm sorry...where is the crime here, exactly?  

Seriously? What if it was “hey I’ll clear your multiple parking violations here for a new Mac donation”. 

That is in no way a valid comparison.  

22july2013

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

sconosciuto said:

22july2013 said:

Why would Apple need guns to do its business?

for the executive protection team, surely that means firearms for bodyguards for Cook and Maestri and other senior executives who could be targets for kidnapping/ransom or threatened by crazy/angry people.

Yes. Exactly. My point was that Apple opposes the use of guns in America... except for itself. Tim Cook calls for gun control, but doesn't practice what he preaches:

I see, so you thought you were making some sort of sick burn. HURR HURR HURR GABBY GIFFORDS HATES GUNS BUT HER HUSBAND MARK KELLY OWNED A GUN THIS ONE TIME Alrighty then. Hope you stretched properly before that reach.

I guess we are even, because now I don't understand what you are saying.