4 ms·

If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A C

by Chris2048 5y ago

If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control.

leesalminen 5y ago
So if I were to own 1 share of $AMZN, I’d be criminally liable for anything the corporation does? Would I do 10 minutes in jail or something?
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  I don't think you're liable for any of Amazon's decisions. Maybe if you voted yes on "Engage in crime" but the decisions of executives are their own.
  - leesalminen 5y ago
    That makes more sense. Maybe I was reading into the parent’s use of the term “beneficial owners”. Every shareholder of a public corporation is a “beneficial owner”.
- jellicle 5y ago
  Perhaps people should. There's no intrinsic reason why a system must exist where certain kinds of enterprises can be FUNDED by me, I can receive PROFIT from them, but I cannot receive any CONSEQUENCES from them if they commit crimes. One might even say the system encourages the commission of crimes and therefore is clearly in need of reform.
  - ta988 5y ago
    Then company ability to distribute dividends should be restrained if they engaged in criminal actions.
- dec0dedab0de 5y ago
  I used to argue for exactly this. The thing is that people would only invest in companies with executives they personally trust. Which may be a good thing overall, but would be a big problem in the short term. I definitely think board members and Top executives should be held criminally liable for the actions of the company. Unless they can prove it was a specific bad actor, and that their policies didn't encourage illegal behavior, and that they weren't negligent in discovering and stopping said behavior. That is, if a delivery driver crashes his car because he was drinking on the job then that is on him. If the same delivery driver is speeding because he was given a list of deliveries that were not possible to make on time, that is on the executives. Conspiracy to break the speed limit, maybe even RICO charges. Even for something that simple.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    "Unless they can prove it was a specific bad actor" That's the opposite of the entire basis of the US criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. You need to prove it was them. Not have them prove it was another bad actor.
    - 8note 5y ago
      Youve already been proven guilty by that point If you can prove somebody else was fully responsible, it goes to them
    - mlyle 5y ago
      No, it's not. There are affirmative defenses: things that can excuse you from criminal liability if you prove a certain set of facts. For instance, self defense is generally an affirmative defense: something that the defense must prove to avoid conviction, instead of something the prosecution must disprove.
  - nathancahill 5y ago
    > maybe even RICO charges Paging @Popehat...
  - curryst 5y ago
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  That actually seems like a great idea. Not 10 minutes of jail time, but some form of liability. If orgs are incentivized to increase shareholder value, and those shareholders face no liability for wrongdoing done to increase their assets worth, then the incentives are out of whack. I don't know what kinds of liability makes sense, but some form seems like a great idea. If you own one share of amazon, and it gets some penalty, then you face 0.00000002% of that penalty in some way.
  - anonymousab 5y ago
    Make it actual jail time, and for the company itself. No monetary flow, no work being done, no contracts honored, restricted and slow (if any) access to assets, etc. Would it be traumatic? For sure. Potentially "life-ruining" for the company and the people close to it? Sure. Just like jail and prison are for regular people.
    - sixothree 5y ago
      Charge them $15 for a 10 minute phone call while we're at it.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      While in corporate jail, they can also be contracted to perform labor for less than a $1 an hour like human prisoners are in the US.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      You would almost certainly destroy the jobs of innocent workers who did not even know the crime was taking place. That is punishing innocent people along side with the guilty.
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  Clearly this is meant to be silly but if we take it seriously - Why shouldn't those who stand to benefit from ill-gotten gains be those who suffer the pain when the company breaks the law? At least in a proportional way? If, for example, a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock for all stakeholders it would align market price with shadiness of company executives. It would suck getting burned by an executive doing something nefarious you didn't know about but it wouldn't take many events like that to make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Because while benefit and control are closely correlated, it's sometimes (purposefully) the case that you can have benefit, without control (or oversight). > a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock Doesn't this sort of happen anyway? How would you prevent it increasing again; are you literally collecting a fee from stockholders (like a kind of anti-dividend)? > it would align market price with shadiness of company executives Then corps would just invest more in opaqueness and deniability (which they already do now). Corporations are known for being all PR public face. Plus, it would be easier to tank competition with slander and gossip - making investors even more scandal adverse (but not necessarily more ethically aligned) > make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place Or that there's an easy scapegoat lined up.
- sixothree 5y ago
  Did you perform or direct someone to commit an illegal act?
- Chris2048 5y ago
  I thought a beneficial owner needs to have a certain % share or voting rights? Maybe I'm wrong about that. What I mean is, anyone with enough skin in the game to have ultimate control. Also, I wouldn't assign sentences based on % ownership/compensation, but rather on control-based blame.
notyourday 5y ago
> If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control. Not shareholders but the officers and directors of the company. We already have this for financials under Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. There was lots of whining that they could not possibly sign off on it because the financials are too complex and with personal criminal and civil liability for CEO/CFO there would be no CEOs/CFOs that would take it. Act got passed and, as if by magic, CEOs and CFOs decided that taking personally the criminal and civil liability was OK.
gogopuppygogo 5y ago
No one would run or invest in a company within a country with such a law. It’s basically a global world. Anyone intelligent would leave.
jedberg 5y ago
In this case then nothing would happen, because the "person" is "dead". We need some framework for holding actual people liable for the actions of corporations they control.

leesalminen 5y ago

So if I were to own 1 share of $AMZN, I’d be criminally liable for anything the corporation does? Would I do 10 minutes in jail or something?

DoctorOW 5y ago
I don't think you're liable for any of Amazon's decisions. Maybe if you voted yes on "Engage in crime" but the decisions of executives are their own.
- leesalminen 5y ago
  That makes more sense. Maybe I was reading into the parent’s use of the term “beneficial owners”. Every shareholder of a public corporation is a “beneficial owner”.
jellicle 5y ago
Perhaps people should. There's no intrinsic reason why a system must exist where certain kinds of enterprises can be FUNDED by me, I can receive PROFIT from them, but I cannot receive any CONSEQUENCES from them if they commit crimes. One might even say the system encourages the commission of crimes and therefore is clearly in need of reform.
- ta988 5y ago
  Then company ability to distribute dividends should be restrained if they engaged in criminal actions.
dec0dedab0de 5y ago
I used to argue for exactly this. The thing is that people would only invest in companies with executives they personally trust. Which may be a good thing overall, but would be a big problem in the short term. I definitely think board members and Top executives should be held criminally liable for the actions of the company. Unless they can prove it was a specific bad actor, and that their policies didn't encourage illegal behavior, and that they weren't negligent in discovering and stopping said behavior. That is, if a delivery driver crashes his car because he was drinking on the job then that is on him. If the same delivery driver is speeding because he was given a list of deliveries that were not possible to make on time, that is on the executives. Conspiracy to break the speed limit, maybe even RICO charges. Even for something that simple.
- yupper32 5y ago
  "Unless they can prove it was a specific bad actor" That's the opposite of the entire basis of the US criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty. You need to prove it was them. Not have them prove it was another bad actor.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Youve already been proven guilty by that point If you can prove somebody else was fully responsible, it goes to them
  - mlyle 5y ago
    No, it's not. There are affirmative defenses: things that can excuse you from criminal liability if you prove a certain set of facts. For instance, self defense is generally an affirmative defense: something that the defense must prove to avoid conviction, instead of something the prosecution must disprove.
- nathancahill 5y ago
  > maybe even RICO charges Paging @Popehat...
- curryst 5y ago
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
That actually seems like a great idea. Not 10 minutes of jail time, but some form of liability. If orgs are incentivized to increase shareholder value, and those shareholders face no liability for wrongdoing done to increase their assets worth, then the incentives are out of whack. I don't know what kinds of liability makes sense, but some form seems like a great idea. If you own one share of amazon, and it gets some penalty, then you face 0.00000002% of that penalty in some way.
- anonymousab 5y ago
  Make it actual jail time, and for the company itself. No monetary flow, no work being done, no contracts honored, restricted and slow (if any) access to assets, etc. Would it be traumatic? For sure. Potentially "life-ruining" for the company and the people close to it? Sure. Just like jail and prison are for regular people.
  - sixothree 5y ago
    Charge them $15 for a 10 minute phone call while we're at it.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    While in corporate jail, they can also be contracted to perform labor for less than a $1 an hour like human prisoners are in the US.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    You would almost certainly destroy the jobs of innocent workers who did not even know the crime was taking place. That is punishing innocent people along side with the guilty.
idiotsecant 5y ago
Clearly this is meant to be silly but if we take it seriously - Why shouldn't those who stand to benefit from ill-gotten gains be those who suffer the pain when the company breaks the law? At least in a proportional way? If, for example, a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock for all stakeholders it would align market price with shadiness of company executives. It would suck getting burned by an executive doing something nefarious you didn't know about but it wouldn't take many events like that to make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Because while benefit and control are closely correlated, it's sometimes (purposefully) the case that you can have benefit, without control (or oversight). > a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock Doesn't this sort of happen anyway? How would you prevent it increasing again; are you literally collecting a fee from stockholders (like a kind of anti-dividend)? > it would align market price with shadiness of company executives Then corps would just invest more in opaqueness and deniability (which they already do now). Corporations are known for being all PR public face. Plus, it would be easier to tank competition with slander and gossip - making investors even more scandal adverse (but not necessarily more ethically aligned) > make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place Or that there's an easy scapegoat lined up.
sixothree 5y ago
Did you perform or direct someone to commit an illegal act?
Chris2048 5y ago
I thought a beneficial owner needs to have a certain % share or voting rights? Maybe I'm wrong about that. What I mean is, anyone with enough skin in the game to have ultimate control. Also, I wouldn't assign sentences based on % ownership/compensation, but rather on control-based blame.

notyourday 5y ago

> If corps are people, maybe they should receive jail sentences as such - and then their executives & beneficial owners can carry them out based on liability. A CEO that takes full control and makes a one-man-shop would therefore be fully liable for any sentence received, and can only avoid this be sharing control. Not shareholders but the officers and directors of the company. We already have this for financials under Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. There was lots of whining that they could not possibly sign off on it because the financials are too complex and with personal criminal and civil liability for CEO/CFO there would be no CEOs/CFOs that would take it. Act got passed and, as if by magic, CEOs and CFOs decided that taking personally the criminal and civil liability was OK.

gogopuppygogo 5y ago

No one would run or invest in a company within a country with such a law. It’s basically a global world. Anyone intelligent would leave.

jedberg 5y ago

In this case then nothing would happen, because the "person" is "dead". We need some framework for holding actual people liable for the actions of corporations they control.