>> In both situations, some subordinates will inevitably commit crimes in the name of the organization (eventually), and holding the person at the top completel

>> In both situations, some subordinates will inevitably commit crimes in the name of the organization (eventually), and holding the person at the top completely responsible is totally unreasonable. My entire argument was that someone somewhere along the chain was indeed responsible and it doesnt have to be the CEO. Youre arguing that the CEO cannot be completely responsible, which totally sidesteps the 14 other layers of people responsible and also conveniently ignores the other 14 layers that could be held responsible, investigated, and prosecuted. Fine, the CEO cant be responsible -- is absolutely no one responsible at all within the organization? If so, how did tens of billions of dollars of profits pour in? How can no one be responsible and yet the companies be so profitable? Probably has something to do with the upper-crust NY culture where those at the SEC, NY Times, SD-DoJ, and Walls Street are all friends. It is also not surprising that the two individuals on whom most issues were hung were a French trader with a deep french accent and an Egyption desk head at a Swiss bank. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/01/goldman-trader-fabrice-tourre-reaction/2609717/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/08/01/gol... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Serageldin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kareem_Serageldin