3 ms·
>"Larger companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million and a physical presence in the US, are exempt from the act." Ho long before
by FpUser 6y ago
>"Larger companies that employ more than 20 people, have revenues above $5 million and a physical presence in the US, are exempt from the act."
Ho long before few smarties pool together and form rich enough criminal enterprise that can act on behalf and serve smaller fish for some extra fee. This law is most likely just for show.
- simonh 6y agoSo instead of each bearing a small risk of getting caught against their small operation, now they are all exposed to the risks of each one of them and any of those risks coming true wipes them all out. Sounds good to me.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago> So instead of each bearing a small risk of getting caught against their small operation, now they are all exposed to the risks of each one of them and any of those risks coming true wipes them all out. Sounds good to me. That isn't the advantage you think it is. It's like getting all your criminals together to coordinate into a mutually assured destruction pact. Now you can't prosecute even low-level crime because the potential for it to affect the big fish makes it economical for the organization to respond to that with bribery, corruption, murder, infiltration of law enforcement agencies etc. It's supposed to be divide and conquer, not solidarity and mutual self-interest for all the crime.
- simonh 6y agoThat's probably true for organised crime generally yes, they can support each other, but we're not just talking about them being allied, but about them all throwing in together in one legally incorporated company. That's next level risky.
- hedora 6y agoI remember when there were lots of small mom and pop criminal gangs. Now we just have the big corporate crooks, and they’re ruining everything.