4 ms·

> As I understand it, if a company actually goes to trial and is convicted, they are not allowed to operate anymore, hence the plea deals and fines. You know,

> As I understand it, if a company actually goes to trial and is convicted, they are not allowed to operate anymore, hence the plea deals and fines. You know, I am a lawyer (a corporate one who freelances as a white collar crime journalist at that!) and I don't even know how this would work. I can't even think of a single criminal case against a corporation that I've reported on that went to trial. It just doesn't really come up. I suspect because it's much easier to charge the directors of the corporation with racketeering or fraud. That being said, I can't imagine a criminal conviction of a corporation would dissolve the entity. We don't execute people for committing fraud so I'd be surprised if a judge would execute an entity. I'm also not sure what would stop a corporation from quickly winding up if it seemed criminal charges were on the horizon. After all, you can't charge a "person" with a crime if that "person" isn't there to defend themselves.

fencepost 8y ago
you can't charge a "person" with a crime if that "person" isn't there to defend themselves Individuals charged with crimes are defended by attorneys without visibly participating in their criminal trials all the time. I can't imagine a criminal conviction of a corporation would dissolve the entity. No need to dissolve it, simply place it under the same kind of restrictions that someone in prison is placed under - no direct financial activity, severely curtailed communications, etc.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  > Individuals charged with crimes are defended by attorneys without visibly participating in their criminal trials all the time. Lack of visible participation is far from lack of participation. In the US due process requires the defendant's presence to commence a criminal trial. Once charges have been brought the defendant has a right (that can in some circumstances be waived) to attend and participate in every stage of the trail. Barring a few narrow circumstances[1] once proceedings have commenced a criminal trial in absentia is unconstitutional. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_State...
  - munk-a 8y ago
    I feel like if we were scaling this to a corporation then all shareholders would potentially have a right to be present for the trial? There might (terribly) be some sane precedent set prior to the 13th amendment regarding the rights of slave owners to be present at trial for their slaves - I'm 100% anti-slavery but it is the last instance I'm aware of that might yield light on what rights legal persons who partially own other legal persons who have been charged with a crime have. Edited - reworded "persons" to "legal persons" in a few places.
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      This would be an interesting law school exam question :) Is there a de minimus ownership that triggers a shareholders right to be present? Were slave owners permitted to mount a defense on behalf of their accused slaves? Post your question on r/legaladviceofftopic I bet you'll get some very interesting answers...
      - dror 8y ago
        And this discussion demonstrates the absurdity of corporations = people. If you prick it, does it bleed? If you tickle it, does it laugh? If you poison it, does it die?
        munk-a 8y ago
        So, this point bugs me. I am dead set against the decision to allow corporations to participate in our political system but nobody has ever said "So, mom, dad... this is Purdue Pharma - you can call him Fred for short - we're uh, we're getting married!". Corporations aren't people, they aren't human beings and they aren't homo-sapiens what they are is, quite accurately, legal "persons" when it comes to how a lot of US laws are worded. There are things that you do and a corporation do that a river can't do, and to describe this set of things laws use the term "person" this makes sense but the name is terrible. In the US, for instance, you can't sue a mountain if you fall and hurt yourself - you can sue a mining company that left equipment there, or maybe the national parks service for having unsafe trails or maybe even your friend Fred (i.e. Purdue Pharma) for pushing you off the edge of the cliff (maybe, more accurately, for failing to inform you of a dizziness side effect in a medication they sold you that caused you to fall) but you can't sue the mountain itself and, likewise, there is no way a mountain could be punished that we can comprehend - again, maybe if this mountain is owned by someone then, as a result of this suit, you are awarded partial mining rights or ownership of the mountain - but that is a compensation granted at the loss of some other entity, maybe a mining company, or the property owner or even the US government. Either way, corporations and human beings have some legal commonalities that aren't shared with mountains. elliekelly as you're actually a lawyer, can you express this better or clarify it?
munk-a 8y ago
Corporations are frequently enough charged with crimes to necessitate the existence of corporate lawyers (i.e. you). The discussion of whether corporate manslaughter should be a thing was never one that hinged on whether it would be unconstitutional... Just generally, I'm not buying this > After all, you can't charge a "person" with a crime if that "person" isn't there to defend themselves. especially since people can be charged with crimes for failing to show up for court dates and, while I'm not certain about the US legal system, plenty of war crime charges have been formally with the charged party in absentia.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  To be clear I'm not saying a corporation can't be charged with a crime. Just that a corporation charged with a crime almost never goes to trial. And I don't know a single corporate attorney who has ever handled a criminal case for a corporation. We negotiate contracts, not plea agreements. So while I'm not at all a criminal attorney (and I don't pretend to be an expert here) a defendant's presence at a criminal trial is first year law school stuff. A defendant absolutely must be present for the initial appearance. They can waive their right to appear (by not showing up once they've been charged) but criminal charges cannot be brought in absentia. My point was that a corporation that ceased to exist likely wouldn't face charges the same way a deceased person wouldn't face charges because the government can't charge a defendant without their presence. If the government could charge people with crimes without having them appear in court they surely would have tried and convicted Whitey Bulger long before he was caught and wouldn't have been so concerned with Julian Assange's extradition.
  - unreal37 8y ago
    (Gotta love all the non-lawyers arguing with a corporate lawyer over corporate law.) If people could be criminally charged "in absentia", then Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, etc would be convicted of things while they were in hiding. I think a better analogy is that they don't convict dead people of crimes. There's nothing to be gained from that.

fencepost 8y ago

you can't charge a "person" with a crime if that "person" isn't there to defend themselves Individuals charged with crimes are defended by attorneys without visibly participating in their criminal trials all the time. I can't imagine a criminal conviction of a corporation would dissolve the entity. No need to dissolve it, simply place it under the same kind of restrictions that someone in prison is placed under - no direct financial activity, severely curtailed communications, etc.

elliekelly 8y ago
> Individuals charged with crimes are defended by attorneys without visibly participating in their criminal trials all the time. Lack of visible participation is far from lack of participation. In the US due process requires the defendant's presence to commence a criminal trial. Once charges have been brought the defendant has a right (that can in some circumstances be waived) to attend and participate in every stage of the trail. Barring a few narrow circumstances[1] once proceedings have commenced a criminal trial in absentia is unconstitutional. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_in_absentia#United_State...
- munk-a 8y ago
  I feel like if we were scaling this to a corporation then all shareholders would potentially have a right to be present for the trial? There might (terribly) be some sane precedent set prior to the 13th amendment regarding the rights of slave owners to be present at trial for their slaves - I'm 100% anti-slavery but it is the last instance I'm aware of that might yield light on what rights legal persons who partially own other legal persons who have been charged with a crime have. Edited - reworded "persons" to "legal persons" in a few places.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    This would be an interesting law school exam question :) Is there a de minimus ownership that triggers a shareholders right to be present? Were slave owners permitted to mount a defense on behalf of their accused slaves? Post your question on r/legaladviceofftopic I bet you'll get some very interesting answers...
    - dror 8y ago
      And this discussion demonstrates the absurdity of corporations = people. If you prick it, does it bleed? If you tickle it, does it laugh? If you poison it, does it die?
      - munk-a 8y ago
        So, this point bugs me. I am dead set against the decision to allow corporations to participate in our political system but nobody has ever said "So, mom, dad... this is Purdue Pharma - you can call him Fred for short - we're uh, we're getting married!". Corporations aren't people, they aren't human beings and they aren't homo-sapiens what they are is, quite accurately, legal "persons" when it comes to how a lot of US laws are worded. There are things that you do and a corporation do that a river can't do, and to describe this set of things laws use the term "person" this makes sense but the name is terrible. In the US, for instance, you can't sue a mountain if you fall and hurt yourself - you can sue a mining company that left equipment there, or maybe the national parks service for having unsafe trails or maybe even your friend Fred (i.e. Purdue Pharma) for pushing you off the edge of the cliff (maybe, more accurately, for failing to inform you of a dizziness side effect in a medication they sold you that caused you to fall) but you can't sue the mountain itself and, likewise, there is no way a mountain could be punished that we can comprehend - again, maybe if this mountain is owned by someone then, as a result of this suit, you are awarded partial mining rights or ownership of the mountain - but that is a compensation granted at the loss of some other entity, maybe a mining company, or the property owner or even the US government. Either way, corporations and human beings have some legal commonalities that aren't shared with mountains. elliekelly as you're actually a lawyer, can you express this better or clarify it?

munk-a 8y ago

Corporations are frequently enough charged with crimes to necessitate the existence of corporate lawyers (i.e. you). The discussion of whether corporate manslaughter should be a thing was never one that hinged on whether it would be unconstitutional... Just generally, I'm not buying this > After all, you can't charge a "person" with a crime if that "person" isn't there to defend themselves. especially since people can be charged with crimes for failing to show up for court dates and, while I'm not certain about the US legal system, plenty of war crime charges have been formally with the charged party in absentia.

elliekelly 8y ago
To be clear I'm not saying a corporation can't be charged with a crime. Just that a corporation charged with a crime almost never goes to trial. And I don't know a single corporate attorney who has ever handled a criminal case for a corporation. We negotiate contracts, not plea agreements. So while I'm not at all a criminal attorney (and I don't pretend to be an expert here) a defendant's presence at a criminal trial is first year law school stuff. A defendant absolutely must be present for the initial appearance. They can waive their right to appear (by not showing up once they've been charged) but criminal charges cannot be brought in absentia. My point was that a corporation that ceased to exist likely wouldn't face charges the same way a deceased person wouldn't face charges because the government can't charge a defendant without their presence. If the government could charge people with crimes without having them appear in court they surely would have tried and convicted Whitey Bulger long before he was caught and wouldn't have been so concerned with Julian Assange's extradition.
- unreal37 8y ago
  (Gotta love all the non-lawyers arguing with a corporate lawyer over corporate law.) If people could be criminally charged "in absentia", then Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, etc would be convicted of things while they were in hiding. I think a better analogy is that they don't convict dead people of crimes. There's nothing to be gained from that.