Apple is ignoring Congo's accusations over conflict materials, say lawyers

AppleInsider

Lawyers for the Congo government say that Apple has not responded to its requests over the use of conflict minerals in the iPhone and other devices -- and that it has new evidence against the company.

Apple has been asked to verify that it doesn't use "conflict minerals" in the iPhone

In April 2024, lawyers representing the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) wrote to Tim Cook asking for proof that the company is not using minerals mined from areas that profit militant groups. Apple has previously stated that it does not, but the lawyers said that its claims were inadequate.

The law firm Amsterdam & Partners gave Apple three weeks to respond. But according to Reuters, four weeks after the letter, the lawyers are saying that Apple has "has remained silent and neither answered nor even acknowledged receipt of the questions."

Chief lawyer Robert Amsterdam reportedly said that the DRC now has further reason to press Apple for details.

"We have received new evidence from whistleblowers," he said. "It is more urgent than ever that Apple provide real answers to the very serious questions we have raised."

There are no details of what the new evidence is. Also, at time of writing, Amsterdam & Partners has not published a statement on its website or social media accounts.

However, AppleInsider has now seen the complete statement. It says that Apple's silence is an admission of guilt, or at least of embarrassment over the issue.

The statement further says that the DRC has instructed the lawyers to investigate legal options against Apple, under American and French laws. The original letter to Tim Cook was copied to Apple's subsidiary in France.

Apple has not commented on the latest statement. However, it has previously claimed to have ceased working with suppliers who were flouting the rules over the sourcing of tin, tungsten, and tantalum from such regions.

Update May 22, 08:00 Eastern: Updated with details of the Amsterdam & Partners statement sent to AppleInsider.



Read on AppleInsider

beowulfschmidt

Then present the damned evidence.  You don't get to demand that Apple prove it's innocence without providing evidence of guilt.

kierkegaarden

Three weeks to respond…or what?  What are you gonna do?

avon b7

Kierkegaarden said:

Three weeks to respond…or what?  What are you gonna do?

FTA:

"The statement further says that the DRC has instructed the lawyers to investigate legal options against Apple, under American and French laws. The original letter to Tim Cook was copied to Apple's subsidiary in France." 

If the evidence is such I'm surprised those options haven't been investigated already. 

Apple can refuse to answer until required to do so and I'm fine with that. 

There may be some validity to the claims and that may be why Apple is keeping mum but they can't be expected to respond to every claim, every time.

It is a PR juggling act. 

sbdude

So much for the right to remain silent.

9secondkox2

I usually ignore false accusations and naysayers too. 

Good policy. 

Innocent until proven guilty. 

Not the other way around. 

Until a suit is brought or a summons is issued, windbags can continue think they are more important than they actually are. 

edited May 2024

jdw

9secondkox2 said:

Innocent until proven guilty. 

A lot of people believe that as truth, but it is only truth in a strictly LEGAL sense.  In other words, it is true only in the way that lawyers, judges or courts think, which is NOT how you, I and everyone else think.

Consider someone who is ACCUSED of a crime but not yet PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law.  That person could be kept confined in jail for various reasons, through their court date.  How is that possible if they are truly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?  Because "innocent until proven guilty" is only in a legal sense, not in a true sense.  

If the accused must be treated as a truly 100% innocent person until a court proves them guilty, then no one could or should be kept behind bars until their court date, for any reason.  "This person is a flight risk" or similar should never be used to lockup a truly INNOCENT person or party.  But it happens all the time due to the fact that INNOCENCE is not defined in a way that most people think.  The definition of that word "innocent" has a special meaning as defined by the legal system.  You can't define the word in the normal way.

This is why most people don't understand that you are NOT "innocent" at all until proven guilty, as per the fact you could be put in jail by a judge at any time, even before the court proves your guilt.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is effectively an illusion.  It doesn't truly exist. Only if the law prevented a judge from throwing you into jail UNTIL you are proven guilty can it be said that you are truly being treated as an "innocent" person until your guilt is proven.  

(The caveats of not throwing dangerous people in jail until their court dates is irrelevant to this discussion which focuses on what "innocence" really means.  We are explaining the term and the phrase here, not seeking to defend or otherwise change the legal system.)

entropys

Maybe Apple hasn’t been paying enough to some officials under the table.

”nice supply chain you have here, pity if something happened to it.”

Inserts conflict minerals in the chain here.

edited May 2024

daalseth

Any Apple response would only amplify the charges being made. 

leicaman

Oh that is rich, this kind of particular accusation from one of the worst countries in Africa for conflict mining. I have personal professional knowledge (retired) of what goes on there, and it's the Government itself, I'm betting seeking to maintain its monopoly on conflict mining. It simply doesn't like any companies with real ethics operating there and not giving them a cut of the action. Utter hypocrisy.

leicaman

jdw said:

9secondkox2 said:

Innocent until proven guilty. 

A lot of people believe that as truth, but it is only truth in a strictly LEGAL sense.  In other words, it is true only in the way that lawyers, judges or courts think, which is NOT how you, I and everyone else think.

Consider someone who is ACCUSED of a crime but not yet PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law.  That person could be kept confined in jail for various reasons, through their court date.  How is that possible if they are truly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?  Because "innocent until proven guilty" is only in a legal sense, not in a true sense.  

If the accused must be treated as a truly 100% innocent person until a court proves them guilty, then no one could or should be kept behind bars until their court date, for any reason.  "This person is a flight risk" or similar should never be used to lockup a truly INNOCENT person or party.  But it happens all the time due to the fact that INNOCENCE is not defined in a way that most people think.  The definition of that word "innocent" has a special meaning as defined by the legal system.  You can't define the word in the normal way.

This is why most people don't understand that you are NOT "innocent" at all until proven guilty, as per the fact you could be put in jail by a judge at any time, even before the court proves your guilt.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is effectively an illusion.  It doesn't truly exist. Only if the law prevented a judge from throwing you into jail UNTIL you are proven guilty can it be said that you are truly being treated as an "innocent" person until your guilt is proven.  

(The caveats of not throwing dangerous people in jail until their court dates is irrelevant to this discussion which focuses on what "innocence" really means.  We are explaining the term and the phrase here, not seeking to defend or otherwise change the legal system.)

Actually, when people are acquitted, that does not mean they are innocent. It just means the prosecution didn't prove their accusation. 

And I think you are a bit into straw-man territory with that definition of the word innocent. When people say one is innocent until proven guilty, it's accepted that it doesn't mean they are literally innocent, and it doesn't mean the judge can't confine them until their court date, if there is evidence they are a danger to the public or themselves. Innocent in this context is well understood to be the prosecution has the burden of proof. And you can't simply jail someone because they've been accused of a crime. You have to have reasons to do so.

davidw

jdw said:

9secondkox2 said:

Innocent until proven guilty. 

A lot of people believe that as truth, but it is only truth in a strictly LEGAL sense.  In other words, it is true only in the way that lawyers, judges or courts think, which is NOT how you, I and everyone else think.

Consider someone who is ACCUSED of a crime but not yet PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law.  That person could be kept confined in jail for various reasons, through their court date.  How is that possible if they are truly INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?  Because "innocent until proven guilty" is only in a legal sense, not in a true sense.  

If the accused must be treated as a truly 100% innocent person until a court proves them guilty, then no one could or should be kept behind bars until their court date, for any reason.  "This person is a flight risk" or similar should never be used to lockup a truly INNOCENT person or party.  But it happens all the time due to the fact that INNOCENCE is not defined in a way that most people think.  The definition of that word "innocent" has a special meaning as defined by the legal system.  You can't define the word in the normal way.

This is why most people don't understand that you are NOT "innocent" at all until proven guilty, as per the fact you could be put in jail by a judge at any time, even before the court proves your guilt.  "Innocent until proven guilty" is effectively an illusion.  It doesn't truly exist. Only if the law prevented a judge from throwing you into jail UNTIL you are proven guilty can it be said that you are truly being treated as an "innocent" person until your guilt is proven.  

(The caveats of not throwing dangerous people in jail until their court dates is irrelevant to this discussion which focuses on what "innocence" really means.  We are explaining the term and the phrase here, not seeking to defend or otherwise change the legal system.)

You have that backwards. There is no "legal sense" for "innocent". No court declares a person "innocent". The term used when guilt has not been proven is ..... "not guilty". It is only in non-legalese that anyone can be "innocent", which everyday people use all the time. But you are correct in that in legal terms, there is no ...... "innocent until proven guilty."

"Innocent until proven guilty" is short for "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". Which is based on the "Presumption of Innocence". Lawyers, Judges and courts must "presume" innocence", not necessarily "assume" some one is innocent. That is that "innocence" is accepted, without needing any evidence of it.

This goes back to Roman laws where  ........ "the burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies". Which mean in a court of law, the accused do not have to prove their "innocence", their "innocence" is already and must be "presumed" by the courts, in order for there to be a fair trial. The burden of proof is on the accuser. And if they do not meet that burden, the accused is declared "not guilty". The accused is not declared "innocent". The "presumption of innocence" only need to exist in a court of law, otherwise there can be no fair trial. The police officer that arrested you, the Judge that might have signed a search warrant, the DA that charged you and the Judge that set your bail, do not have to "presume" you are "innocent until proven guilty".  

When charges are brought against the accused, the accuser think that they have enough evidence to meet their burden of proof in a court of law and the accused are required to be present. Even if they are "presumed innocent". Confinement before the court date has nothing to do with not being "presumed innocent". It has to do with the courts insuring that the accused will be present in court to address the evidence against them. As far as the lawyers, Judges and courts trying your case are concern, the "presumption of innocence" still and must still exist, even if the accused must remain confined because they can not post bail, are a high flight risk or are deemed a danger to society.