3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThat 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.