5 ms·

> companies escaped seizure through insolvency This is a strange arrangement that I guess most countries follow. Companies are legal entities, that can be sued

> companies escaped seizure through insolvency This is a strange arrangement that I guess most countries follow. Companies are legal entities, that can be sued and so on. But a company cannot go to jail (board members or stock owners don't typically go to jail either). These legal entities can also seize to exist (like in this example), and then there is nobody left to be held accountable... It seems like most countries treat companies better than humans.

nikanj 5y ago
Most countries also stop criminal & civil proceedings if the human in question ceases to exist
- vincnetas 5y ago
  Yes, but creating a company does not require 18 years compared to raising adult human. So this can be throw away entities.
- OtomotO 5y ago
  But ceasing to exist and dying are similar yet also different concepts. A company can cease to exist on a whim, yet be reborn the next minute under a different name, with the same "genes", the same "information", because the actual living, breathing people behind it, just move on.
- y4mi 5y ago
  They don't though? They'd follow through if person a profited from fraud,then died and inherited that money to a third person. With companies it just ends there and then
- bjarneh 5y ago
  > ceases to exist Exactly, you cannot just change name and buy a mustache like these companies basically can.
jacquesm 5y ago
Big difference between board members and stockholders. Board members are liable to some extent stockholders almost never are, unless the business was specifically founded to facilitate crime. That's where the term Ultimate Beneficiary comes into play.
- bjarneh 5y ago
  > Big difference between board members and stockholders. Completely agree, but in small/medium size companies (no public stock etc), these are often the same people. In many cases it's completely obvious who (which humans) that have done something wrong, but since we still accept that the legal entity under which they operated no longer exists; you're stuck. A problem where I live (Norway) has been that people register companies to build apartment buildings, then immediately dissolve the company once the apartments are sold. The people who buy those flats better pray that there is nothing wrong with them, as there is basically nowhere to turn if there is.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    In such cases, where it is totally clear that the people in charge of that business acted in bad faith I'm all for going after them in person. A good building company either insures against such risks or they create a warranty fund. An even worse example would be a builder going bankrupt during the building. This is one of the reasons I've never bought a new house, it either exists and you can sell it to me or you can try to sell it to someone else first but I'm not going to assume that kind of risk.
    - bjarneh 5y ago
      > acted in bad faith I'm all for going after them in person I agree, but this should be standard procedure. Hiding behind these peculiar "legal entities" that cannot possibly be held accountable anyway, makes no sense. > This is one of the reasons I've never bought a new house Same here, although the house I did buy was 160 years old; which also comes with its own set of problems :-)

nikanj 5y ago

Most countries also stop criminal & civil proceedings if the human in question ceases to exist

vincnetas 5y ago
Yes, but creating a company does not require 18 years compared to raising adult human. So this can be throw away entities.
OtomotO 5y ago
But ceasing to exist and dying are similar yet also different concepts. A company can cease to exist on a whim, yet be reborn the next minute under a different name, with the same "genes", the same "information", because the actual living, breathing people behind it, just move on.
y4mi 5y ago
They don't though? They'd follow through if person a profited from fraud,then died and inherited that money to a third person. With companies it just ends there and then
bjarneh 5y ago
> ceases to exist Exactly, you cannot just change name and buy a mustache like these companies basically can.

jacquesm 5y ago

Big difference between board members and stockholders. Board members are liable to some extent stockholders almost never are, unless the business was specifically founded to facilitate crime. That's where the term Ultimate Beneficiary comes into play.

bjarneh 5y ago
> Big difference between board members and stockholders. Completely agree, but in small/medium size companies (no public stock etc), these are often the same people. In many cases it's completely obvious who (which humans) that have done something wrong, but since we still accept that the legal entity under which they operated no longer exists; you're stuck. A problem where I live (Norway) has been that people register companies to build apartment buildings, then immediately dissolve the company once the apartments are sold. The people who buy those flats better pray that there is nothing wrong with them, as there is basically nowhere to turn if there is.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  In such cases, where it is totally clear that the people in charge of that business acted in bad faith I'm all for going after them in person. A good building company either insures against such risks or they create a warranty fund. An even worse example would be a builder going bankrupt during the building. This is one of the reasons I've never bought a new house, it either exists and you can sell it to me or you can try to sell it to someone else first but I'm not going to assume that kind of risk.
  - bjarneh 5y ago
    > acted in bad faith I'm all for going after them in person I agree, but this should be standard procedure. Hiding behind these peculiar "legal entities" that cannot possibly be held accountable anyway, makes no sense. > This is one of the reasons I've never bought a new house Same here, although the house I did buy was 160 years old; which also comes with its own set of problems :-)