3 ms·

Or at least fine the people involved in making this decision instead of fining the company.

by gpm 6y ago

kube-system 6y ago
I would guess that with something like this (where there is probably a lot of people involved in varying capacities) it's easier to demonstrate that the company as a whole did something wrong than it is to demonstrate that specific people within the company did it.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  Well that is a problem of the laws themselves. For any sufficiently large company, especially one where the CEO profits privately directly from the company profiting publicly, a portion of that money should be tied to the company directly in terms of liability. You shouldn’t have to prove the CEO was directly involved. At the level they are, the very nature of their position should have some sort of liability in regards to the actions taken by that company under their watch. It should be built into the very regulations and laws. This would hold CEOs accountable for inaction, apathy, or ignorance leading to law breaking within their company, and it would only apply to compensation for managing said company.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    The laws in the US do pierce the corporate veil for execs, especially in the case of fraud. Also, SOX does make execs criminally liable for the accuracy of some financial records regardless of their involvement. I would not be surprised to see a class-action from investors in addition to this fine.
- comboy 6y ago
  In theory, I would just charge the CEO. That should be default. CEO can defend himself pointing to people who made the decision without his acknowledgement if that was the case. CEO should have trustworthy people manage the company. I said in theory, because while that would be sweet, in practice our law is so complex that even huge CEO with tons of lawyers cannot really be sure he is abiding it. If you want somebody guilty it's just a matter of time invested, especially with the amount of activity that is taken by a whole company.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    That goes contrary to basic tenets of law in most of the world. People who are charged with a crime start with a presumption of innocence, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate that they broke the law. In the US, the standard required is "beyond a reasonable doubt". On the other hand, civil penalties (like fines) don't have the same burden of proof, which is why you often see them in situations like these. They are easier to prove. They generally only require a "preponderance of the evidence" to prove.

Or at least fine the people involved in making this decision instead of fining the company.

by gpm 6y ago

Or at least fine the people involved in making this decision instead of fining the company.

I would guess that with something like this (where there is probably a lot of people involved in varying capacities) it's easier to demonstrate that the company as a whole did something wrong than it is to demonstrate that specific people within the company did it.

542354234235 6y ago
Well that is a problem of the laws themselves. For any sufficiently large company, especially one where the CEO profits privately directly from the company profiting publicly, a portion of that money should be tied to the company directly in terms of liability. You shouldn’t have to prove the CEO was directly involved. At the level they are, the very nature of their position should have some sort of liability in regards to the actions taken by that company under their watch. It should be built into the very regulations and laws. This would hold CEOs accountable for inaction, apathy, or ignorance leading to law breaking within their company, and it would only apply to compensation for managing said company.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The laws in the US do pierce the corporate veil for execs, especially in the case of fraud. Also, SOX does make execs criminally liable for the accuracy of some financial records regardless of their involvement. I would not be surprised to see a class-action from investors in addition to this fine.
comboy 6y ago
In theory, I would just charge the CEO. That should be default. CEO can defend himself pointing to people who made the decision without his acknowledgement if that was the case. CEO should have trustworthy people manage the company. I said in theory, because while that would be sweet, in practice our law is so complex that even huge CEO with tons of lawyers cannot really be sure he is abiding it. If you want somebody guilty it's just a matter of time invested, especially with the amount of activity that is taken by a whole company.
- kube-system 6y ago
  That goes contrary to basic tenets of law in most of the world. People who are charged with a crime start with a presumption of innocence, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate that they broke the law. In the US, the standard required is "beyond a reasonable doubt". On the other hand, civil penalties (like fines) don't have the same burden of proof, which is why you often see them in situations like these. They are easier to prove. They generally only require a "preponderance of the evidence" to prove.