5 ms·

> no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges can the FTC or whoever else is involved _at_ _this_ _stage_ even file criminal charges against indivi

> no persons involved are being hit with criminal charges can the FTC or whoever else is involved _at_ _this_ _stage_ even file criminal charges against individuals? we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" variety whenever a government body that can't file criminal charges fails to do so.

vermontdevil 7y ago
I’m sure they can refer to Justice Department to go down that path?
- deadmutex 7y ago
  If you're sure, why does your reply end in a question mark?
  - justrobert 7y ago
    Your issue is with a person using spoken English in a text medium. No way to convey intonation in text so people often use a question mark to convey it.
    - bcoates 7y ago
      It's not an intonation thing, the idiom is "Surely (conditionally true statement)?" and uppost was verbing for some reason
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    I'm with you buddy, people putting question marks at the end of statements is obnoxious.
tyingq 7y ago
They have a liason department that has that mission: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit
shaneprrlt 7y ago
They're known for imposing fines that are minuscule relative to the amount of damage whoever they're investigating caused. For most deceptive operations large enough to land on the FTC's radar, whatever fines they might end up paying are considered a speeding ticket and cost of doing business. It's sad, really. They're also known for being massively understaffed relative to the amount of complaints they receive.
- dylan604 7y ago
  So what is the difference between CA, corporate banks, etc that are corporations that "shield" the employees from personally facing criminal action, and me running out to file an LLC/SCorp/etc to do illegal activities myself? Is it purely the size of their bank accounts?
  - wahern 7y ago
    It's the size of an organization and the complexity of the enterprise. Large, sophisticated corporations effectively shield executives from personal criminal liability because decision making is more diffuse--or at least they have an easier time arguing that. If a prosecutor could establish that a Fortune 500 CEO had the same, unmoderated role in criminal activity as the CEO of a one man shell company, then he'd be just as easy to prosecute and undoubtedly would--that'd make the careers of the D.A. and the attorneys working the case. There aren't many (or any?) laws that criminalize scheming, amoral profiteers who effectively (but not literally) promote a culture of lawlessness. Even if you write them they'd be very hard to prosecute--Due Process protections are strong in the US and Anglosphere systems, at least if you have the money and wherewithal. A bigger problem is that executives and board members are financially shielded, often through corporate-bought personal liability insurance. Maybe things would get better if there were laws mandating clawbacks, with independent agents[1] tasked with drafting the contracts and enforcing clawbacks, and perhaps somehow preventing executives from insuring themselves, such as with mandatory right of recourse clauses (i.e. insurer can always recover their payouts from the insured, making them more like guarantors). This aspect of corporate law is really complex though because it touches on so many subject areas. And stuff like this has been tried--it's how we ended up with corporate-bought personal insurance policies, a response to a brief period where executives and board members found themselves financially exposed during the early years of professional shareholder lawsuits. [1] Even though technically this is supposed to be the responsibility of board members. But that's an even thornier problem.
akira2501 7y ago
> even file criminal charges against individuals? Usually it would be recommended to FBI for legal review, and if they find that laws were broken, then referred to the DOJ for prosecution. > we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" If you committed a crime, whether violent or financial, then you should be prosecuted. It's disheartening to see government lawyers give away the candy store every time just so they can secure a "quick" negotiation and move on with their jobs. Unless people have _real_ disincentives to break the law.. guess what? They're just going to break the law and hide behind their money for as long as we let them. This needs to change or we're going to experience the 1930s again.

vermontdevil 7y ago

I’m sure they can refer to Justice Department to go down that path?

deadmutex 7y ago
If you're sure, why does your reply end in a question mark?
- justrobert 7y ago
  Your issue is with a person using spoken English in a text medium. No way to convey intonation in text so people often use a question mark to convey it.
  - bcoates 7y ago
    It's not an intonation thing, the idiom is "Surely (conditionally true statement)?" and uppost was verbing for some reason
- BubRoss 7y ago
  I'm with you buddy, people putting question marks at the end of statements is obnoxious.

tyingq 7y ago

They have a liason department that has that mission: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/criminal-liaison-unit

shaneprrlt 7y ago

They're known for imposing fines that are minuscule relative to the amount of damage whoever they're investigating caused. For most deceptive operations large enough to land on the FTC's radar, whatever fines they might end up paying are considered a speeding ticket and cost of doing business. It's sad, really. They're also known for being massively understaffed relative to the amount of complaints they receive.

dylan604 7y ago
So what is the difference between CA, corporate banks, etc that are corporations that "shield" the employees from personally facing criminal action, and me running out to file an LLC/SCorp/etc to do illegal activities myself? Is it purely the size of their bank accounts?
- wahern 7y ago
  It's the size of an organization and the complexity of the enterprise. Large, sophisticated corporations effectively shield executives from personal criminal liability because decision making is more diffuse--or at least they have an easier time arguing that. If a prosecutor could establish that a Fortune 500 CEO had the same, unmoderated role in criminal activity as the CEO of a one man shell company, then he'd be just as easy to prosecute and undoubtedly would--that'd make the careers of the D.A. and the attorneys working the case. There aren't many (or any?) laws that criminalize scheming, amoral profiteers who effectively (but not literally) promote a culture of lawlessness. Even if you write them they'd be very hard to prosecute--Due Process protections are strong in the US and Anglosphere systems, at least if you have the money and wherewithal. A bigger problem is that executives and board members are financially shielded, often through corporate-bought personal liability insurance. Maybe things would get better if there were laws mandating clawbacks, with independent agents[1] tasked with drafting the contracts and enforcing clawbacks, and perhaps somehow preventing executives from insuring themselves, such as with mandatory right of recourse clauses (i.e. insurer can always recover their payouts from the insured, making them more like guarantors). This aspect of corporate law is really complex though because it touches on so many subject areas. And stuff like this has been tried--it's how we ended up with corporate-bought personal insurance policies, a response to a brief period where executives and board members found themselves financially exposed during the early years of professional shareholder lawsuits. [1] Even though technically this is supposed to be the responsibility of board members. But that's an even thornier problem.

akira2501 7y ago

> even file criminal charges against individuals? Usually it would be recommended to FBI for legal review, and if they find that laws were broken, then referred to the DOJ for prosecution. > we see over and over comments of the "omg no criminal charges" If you committed a crime, whether violent or financial, then you should be prosecuted. It's disheartening to see government lawyers give away the candy store every time just so they can secure a "quick" negotiation and move on with their jobs. Unless people have _real_ disincentives to break the law.. guess what? They're just going to break the law and hide behind their money for as long as we let them. This needs to change or we're going to experience the 1930s again.