4 ms·
This seems intended to shield corporate executives from criminal liability. Am I wrong?
by alphabettsy 6y ago
This seems intended to shield corporate executives from criminal liability. Am I wrong?
- jacobmarble 6y agoOr is the intent to shield himself after he leaves office?
- mlthoughts2018 6y agoLikely this, for his impending tax fraud and foreign financial crimes.
- wernercd 6y agonothing of which has been proven so far... and if it was the case, wouldn't the "crimes" from before the order be subject to the penalties applicable then? He's surrounded by throngs of lawyers... why do people think he'll be found guilty of anything other than process crimes? IE his charity which was fined 2m for... process crimes. And much like crimes done by Obama, Hillary and others... why wouldn't these "crimes" end in fines and nothing more? What else are you expecting?
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoMost regulatory offenses are punished with fines, which are generally paid by the company rather than the executives. But also, large corporations tend to have lawyers and consequently either not break the rules or have the ability to argue their way out of it. So the main benefit would seem to be to small companies that make an honest mistake.
- alphabettsy 6y agoPossibly, but I read this recently and it was one of the first things that came to mind. https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2021/01/oil-chem-owner-pleads-guilty-in-dumping-of-47-million-gallons-of-landfill-liquid-into-flint-sewers.html https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2021/01/oil-chem-owner-plea... I don’t believe a fine is sufficient for this type of corporate malfeasance, small business or not.
- protomyth 6y agoMore like the little guy that gets the heck fined out of them by some agency. Happens a bit too often, and you are guilty until proven innocent.