4 ms·
Are you interpreting this op-ed to say that investors who have no active hand in the operations of a business should have criminal liability for any actions peo
by baryphonic 7y ago
Are you interpreting this op-ed to say that investors who have no active hand in the operations of a business should have criminal liability for any actions people in the corporation take? I discounted that possibility out of hand since it seems patently absurd when I think about it a bit more.
- unishark 7y agoSome seem to be arguing for that here. It would obviously go against the principle of mens rea. Limited liability doesn't protect anyone from criminal charges anyway.
- dkarras 7y agoI don't have a clear position here, but why not? Shareholders can do their due diligence after all. If you are not directly involved in the decision making that caused suffering to occur then you perhaps incur monetary losses (either through insuring yourself or paying fines). This will of course, change the risk equation. Previously potentially profitable investments suddenly become non-viable because when you factor in insurance costs / possible fines, you can think more than once about funding endeavors by people which might be crooks. If you were directly responsible for the decision making that caused predictable suffering, you can be criminally liable. You can go to jail. What is the problem with that?