3 ms·

So what, they should be able to give fraud another go?

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
Is the counter-proposal that if some part of any company commits fraud, the company should be shut down, everyone who works there should become unemployed, and anyone who depends on company’s product should go without? To me it seems more reasonable to set the penalties at a level that’s high enough to deter violations. To make that calculation, the main inputs should be how much money they can make from the violation and how likely they are to get caught. Other profits the company made that weren’t from fraud are irrelevant. (or in this case, losses, since we are discussing an unprofitable company)
- powerhour 4y ago
  I'm down with fines and jail for the executives. Fines alone are insufficient and nearly pointless.
- deepdriver 4y ago
  Send those who knowingly committed fraud to prison. Incentive those who might've known, or chose not to know, to be more careful in the future, perhaps through fines or minor jail time. I think even a few weeks in jail would be more of a deterrent for some than a minor tax on their fraud's profitability.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Congratulations. You now have to meet a burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to convict a class of people who practically by definition are trained (either by experience, or by legal counsel/their social strata) to communicate in ways to make things happen which leave little or no paper trail leading back to them. Be the first person in a group of founders to want someone to put something controversial down on paper. I guarantee you. You will get chilled out.
- tompt 4y ago
  I don't understand why a corporate death penalty is seen as untenable. For some crimes, yes shut the business down and zero-out the folks who sought to profit from the unlawful activity. If some of those people were defrauded into believing the business was lawful, the should seek the same remedies other defrauded people do. You ask if the folks who depend on the company's product should go without. No, they should move their business to a competitor. If there is no competitor, maybe that's evidence that the business plan is not viable while acting lawfully.

Is the counter-proposal that if some part of any company commits fraud, the company should be shut down, everyone who works there should become unemployed, and anyone who depends on company’s product should go without? To me it seems more reasonable to set the penalties at a level that’s high enough to deter violations. To make that calculation, the main inputs should be how much money they can make from the violation and how likely they are to get caught. Other profits the company made that weren’t from fraud are irrelevant. (or in this case, losses, since we are discussing an unprofitable company)

powerhour 4y ago
I'm down with fines and jail for the executives. Fines alone are insufficient and nearly pointless.
deepdriver 4y ago
Send those who knowingly committed fraud to prison. Incentive those who might've known, or chose not to know, to be more careful in the future, perhaps through fines or minor jail time. I think even a few weeks in jail would be more of a deterrent for some than a minor tax on their fraud's profitability.
- salawat 4y ago
  Congratulations. You now have to meet a burden of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) to convict a class of people who practically by definition are trained (either by experience, or by legal counsel/their social strata) to communicate in ways to make things happen which leave little or no paper trail leading back to them. Be the first person in a group of founders to want someone to put something controversial down on paper. I guarantee you. You will get chilled out.
tompt 4y ago
I don't understand why a corporate death penalty is seen as untenable. For some crimes, yes shut the business down and zero-out the folks who sought to profit from the unlawful activity. If some of those people were defrauded into believing the business was lawful, the should seek the same remedies other defrauded people do. You ask if the folks who depend on the company's product should go without. No, they should move their business to a competitor. If there is no competitor, maybe that's evidence that the business plan is not viable while acting lawfully.