3 ms·

So you're a CEO of a company. Other employees of the company commit crimes. You know about the crimes. The company profits from the crimes paying your salary &/

by harry8 6y ago

So you're a CEO of a company. Other employees of the company commit crimes. You know about the crimes. The company profits from the crimes paying your salary &/or bonus. You do not inform the police. How is this not a criminal conspiracy engaged in by the CEO (either before or after the fact) resulting in Jail time for the CEO? Is it just because "with a computer" that the CEO isn't facing charges? What crimes committed and prior or subsequent knowledge of and then profit from those crimes would qualify in the CEO being charged with being involved in a criminal conspiracy? Does it have to be something that reads dramatically in a newspaper like armed robbery or assult or murder? Do the victims of the crime have to be elderly? Or are those crimes also fine as long as your title is CEO rather than "Don"? Is this fixable?

sunir 6y ago
This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article. Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual? It is a deferred prosecution agreement, which is definitely an aspect of corporatism: that is the pre -eminent rights of corporations over natural people. However there was a criminal conviction of a natural person as well. The DPP was the criminal conviction of the corporation that benefited from the underlying crime. DPPs exist to avoid collateral damage to innocents dependent on the corporation, whilst still criminally convicting the corporation itself. It’s a balancing game. With it a bit nuanced I am curious to understand better what you meant by your comment.
- harry8 6y ago
  Looks to me like the person who holds the job title CEO has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. For profit. Is that really not how it looks to you? Has the CEO been charged? How bad does the crime have to be before the CEO being involved in it before it happened, or becoming aware and profiting from it after without informing the police before the CEO is themselves charged for the CEO's criminal behaviour in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with respect to that crime. I'm hoping if the crime was murder, conspiring by the CEO would result in charges. Yes? What level of crime is sheielded? Should any crime be sheielded like this?
  - sunir 6y ago
    I’m not a criminal prosecutor or lawyer nor do I live in the jurisdiction this was tried under. However, I would wager that the CEO would have to have intentionally and actively cooperated with the criminal act; merely benefiting from it indirectly by running the corporation is insufficient. Hence they indicted the corporation which is directly benefiting. Even if the CEO was aware and conspiring the prosecutor would still need to prove it. They may not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All that being said it is possible prosecution was pro-corporate biased and refused to burn down a company. I am not discounting that possibility. Regardless it is difficult to win convictions so it is also plausible this is the best win prosecution believed it could get.

by harry8 6y ago

sunir 6y ago

This was a criminal conviction. It says so in the article. Are you commenting on the disparate sentencing for the company versus an individual? It is a deferred prosecution agreement, which is definitely an aspect of corporatism: that is the pre -eminent rights of corporations over natural people. However there was a criminal conviction of a natural person as well. The DPP was the criminal conviction of the corporation that benefited from the underlying crime. DPPs exist to avoid collateral damage to innocents dependent on the corporation, whilst still criminally convicting the corporation itself. It’s a balancing game. With it a bit nuanced I am curious to understand better what you meant by your comment.

harry8 6y ago
Looks to me like the person who holds the job title CEO has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. For profit. Is that really not how it looks to you? Has the CEO been charged? How bad does the crime have to be before the CEO being involved in it before it happened, or becoming aware and profiting from it after without informing the police before the CEO is themselves charged for the CEO's criminal behaviour in engaging in a criminal conspiracy with respect to that crime. I'm hoping if the crime was murder, conspiring by the CEO would result in charges. Yes? What level of crime is sheielded? Should any crime be sheielded like this?
- sunir 6y ago
  I’m not a criminal prosecutor or lawyer nor do I live in the jurisdiction this was tried under. However, I would wager that the CEO would have to have intentionally and actively cooperated with the criminal act; merely benefiting from it indirectly by running the corporation is insufficient. Hence they indicted the corporation which is directly benefiting. Even if the CEO was aware and conspiring the prosecutor would still need to prove it. They may not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. All that being said it is possible prosecution was pro-corporate biased and refused to burn down a company. I am not discounting that possibility. Regardless it is difficult to win convictions so it is also plausible this is the best win prosecution believed it could get.