Comment by lmm

> It doesn't seem that is really what the foundation is arguing though, so I'm guessing it wasn't that bad. It seems more their argument is that this violates the non-profit laws they operate under.

It may have been that bad. They don't really have to get into the messy arguments of "was this a fair price for this kind of contracting" because that kind of arrangement is inherently unethical, to the point that you can kind of assume it's embezzlement by default (which is why those non-profit laws are set that way).