And what actions should Joe Schmoe with a mortgage, two kids and their college funds, and a wife who was laid off and has no health insurance take against his e

And what actions should Joe Schmoe with a mortgage, two kids and their college funds, and a wife who was laid off and has no health insurance take against his employer. What do you consider a reasonable level of risk for him to undertake? How much should he be punished for continuing to feed and house his family while the CEO embezzles or otherwise abuses his power? My point is this, why should we punish people who feel they (and in many cases truly) have no choice in whether criminal action was taken? If I held a gun to your head and said, "Just ignore that or I will take everything from you and plunge your life into chaos", what do you do? What is the responsible thing to do? For you? For your family? Your children? Society? The company? The government? For the most part, people working in these companies don't do so becaus they love to work, they do so because they have to to survive and to keep their families afloat. Joe Schmoe executed the orders because he's terrified if he doesn't, there will be retaliation and his life and the lives of those he loves will be severely damaged. CEO person gave the orders because they know a fine is just the cost of doing business and they don't give a fuck who or what they hurt, what laws they break, what damage they do. Do you see the power imbalance here? Why should we not use "who had the power" as a determination for who to prosecute? Unless you provide protection from explicit retaliation and even the power dynamic some I don't see reason to prosecute Joe over CEO. Even then, there are other forms of retaliation that are harder to verify or see. Think about trying to get rid of bullying in a middle or high school.