4 ms·

Well, remember that the SEC is actually penalizing the victims (investors), not the perpetrators (management).

by nickff 4y ago

metadat 4y ago
All the more reason not to participate in the grand sham.
- nickff 4y ago
  I understand your exasperation/frustration, but my fix would be to have the SEC charge individuals rather than corporations (though the settlements would be much smaller).
  - metadat 4y ago
    100% with you my friend @nickff, fix the system. Ship the perps off to a non-white-collar prison, pretty please. They have abused and continue to abuse the public trust for their own personal gain. Sentencing should take macro trends and effects into account. Unfortunately, the United States has a long and sordid history of letting the upper echelon go to town on the public without any significant consequences. Just look at how light Lizzy Holmes is getting off for hundreds of millions in fraud and willingly posing a negligent danger to the public. 20 years or less, and in the meantime she roams free. The system is broken at every level.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Worth noting the SEC does not have the power to charge people with crimes.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        That seems fixable. But anytime a corporation is charged with any crime, at least one executive should also be charged.
        jpgvm 4y ago
        Why even charge corporations? Charge the ultimate beneficiaries and the decision makers. The executives and the board should be the ones with their balls in a vice rather than indirectly harming investors that were already harmed as part of the malicious act.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        There is a legal miasma around "piercing the corporate veil", originally about limiting investors' financial liability for acts of the corporation to their stake in it. Instead it mostly protects officers against criminal charges, which turn into fines borne by those investors in place at the time the fine is finally collected. Officers almost always get off scot-free; often enough, investors too, with the corp simply enjoined to pledge "not to do it anymore". Allegedly this is to protect employment or something, or to encourage boards to exercise control over officers. Instead it encourages officers to keep boards toothless.
        kennend3 4y ago
        Corporations should NEVER be charged. They are nameless legal constructs incapable of making decisions. Worse, when corporations pay fines this is with SHAREHOLDER money. The leaders / decision makers should be fined and corporations forbidden from paying these fines. Having more "prohibited from taking on a leadership role in any publicly traded company for 5 years" rulings would also help. These actions would put a quick end to what takes place these days.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        The sentiment is correct. But the whole purpose of corporations' existence is to provide a vehicle by which to evade all personal responsibility. Thus, every legislative attempt to define avenues for accountability for people wielding corporations is neutered by Supreme Court legal invention. US Congress defined legal status of "person", which SCOTUS extended to include corporations, "legal persons". Then Congress defined "natural person", and SCOTUS extended that to include corporations, too. Congress gave up, after that. US Department of Justice technically has power to "pierce the corporate veil" and charge investors or corporate officers, but practically never does, possibly for fear of collecting a SCOTUS decision eliminating its ability ever to do it at all. As we say, "the fix is in". The only effective legal bound on behavior of people wielding corporations is that it cannot vote or serve on juries, which is not wanted in any case, or be elected to public office. It will be at least a generation before SCOTUS could be constituted to overturn corporate "natural" personhood.
      - Test0129 4y ago
        This is only true on technicality. While the SEC is a regulatory agency they are more-or-less in bed with the FBI who, to my knowledge, has never said "yeah we're not gonna go after that criminal" when they asked. So yes, de facto they cannot charge people with crimes. The reality is they basically just phone the FBI and the FBI does it for them. There's very little separation in powers especially after the chevron deference case.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      > Sentencing should take macro trends and effects into account. This is dangerous territory. Do you want people charged with other crimes to follow the law and sentencing guidelines or to take macro trends into account? Taking macro trends into account to more stiffly punish civil rights protesters in summer of 2020 is an example of something that I would not want. (If we want to laws which explicitly offer variable punishment based on effect/intent [as in first DUI vs fifth DUI or DUI vs DUI crash vs DUI crash with fatality], that’s fine of course, but it should be legislated not judicially sourced.)

Well, remember that the SEC is actually penalizing the victims (investors), not the perpetrators (management).

by nickff 4y ago

Well, remember that the SEC is actually penalizing the victims (investors), not the perpetrators (management).

metadat 4y ago

All the more reason not to participate in the grand sham.

nickff 4y ago
I understand your exasperation/frustration, but my fix would be to have the SEC charge individuals rather than corporations (though the settlements would be much smaller).
- metadat 4y ago
  100% with you my friend @nickff, fix the system. Ship the perps off to a non-white-collar prison, pretty please. They have abused and continue to abuse the public trust for their own personal gain. Sentencing should take macro trends and effects into account. Unfortunately, the United States has a long and sordid history of letting the upper echelon go to town on the public without any significant consequences. Just look at how light Lizzy Holmes is getting off for hundreds of millions in fraud and willingly posing a negligent danger to the public. 20 years or less, and in the meantime she roams free. The system is broken at every level.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Worth noting the SEC does not have the power to charge people with crimes.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      That seems fixable. But anytime a corporation is charged with any crime, at least one executive should also be charged.
      - jpgvm 4y ago
        Why even charge corporations? Charge the ultimate beneficiaries and the decision makers. The executives and the board should be the ones with their balls in a vice rather than indirectly harming investors that were already harmed as part of the malicious act.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        There is a legal miasma around "piercing the corporate veil", originally about limiting investors' financial liability for acts of the corporation to their stake in it. Instead it mostly protects officers against criminal charges, which turn into fines borne by those investors in place at the time the fine is finally collected. Officers almost always get off scot-free; often enough, investors too, with the corp simply enjoined to pledge "not to do it anymore". Allegedly this is to protect employment or something, or to encourage boards to exercise control over officers. Instead it encourages officers to keep boards toothless.
      - kennend3 4y ago
        Corporations should NEVER be charged. They are nameless legal constructs incapable of making decisions. Worse, when corporations pay fines this is with SHAREHOLDER money. The leaders / decision makers should be fined and corporations forbidden from paying these fines. Having more "prohibited from taking on a leadership role in any publicly traded company for 5 years" rulings would also help. These actions would put a quick end to what takes place these days.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        The sentiment is correct. But the whole purpose of corporations' existence is to provide a vehicle by which to evade all personal responsibility. Thus, every legislative attempt to define avenues for accountability for people wielding corporations is neutered by Supreme Court legal invention. US Congress defined legal status of "person", which SCOTUS extended to include corporations, "legal persons". Then Congress defined "natural person", and SCOTUS extended that to include corporations, too. Congress gave up, after that. US Department of Justice technically has power to "pierce the corporate veil" and charge investors or corporate officers, but practically never does, possibly for fear of collecting a SCOTUS decision eliminating its ability ever to do it at all. As we say, "the fix is in". The only effective legal bound on behavior of people wielding corporations is that it cannot vote or serve on juries, which is not wanted in any case, or be elected to public office. It will be at least a generation before SCOTUS could be constituted to overturn corporate "natural" personhood.
    - Test0129 4y ago
      This is only true on technicality. While the SEC is a regulatory agency they are more-or-less in bed with the FBI who, to my knowledge, has never said "yeah we're not gonna go after that criminal" when they asked. So yes, de facto they cannot charge people with crimes. The reality is they basically just phone the FBI and the FBI does it for them. There's very little separation in powers especially after the chevron deference case.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    > Sentencing should take macro trends and effects into account. This is dangerous territory. Do you want people charged with other crimes to follow the law and sentencing guidelines or to take macro trends into account? Taking macro trends into account to more stiffly punish civil rights protesters in summer of 2020 is an example of something that I would not want. (If we want to laws which explicitly offer variable punishment based on effect/intent [as in first DUI vs fifth DUI or DUI vs DUI crash vs DUI crash with fatality], that’s fine of course, but it should be legislated not judicially sourced.)