I think awareness, agency, and intent are also factors here. In your and the OPs examples: - CEO should have a large amount of agency and awareness of the sit

I think awareness, agency, and intent are also factors here. In your and the OPs examples: - CEO should have a large amount of agency and awareness of the situation, meaning they should be on the hook for severe negligence at the least. If intent can be proven, that should definitely result in criminal charges. - A bank teller might have awareness if they personally handle suspiciously large transactions per month, but the amount of agency they have in the situation is low. They can either report it up their chain of command, do nothing, or work elsewhere. You might be able to demonstrate intent here if it’s the same teller and they don’t raise any alarms, but that’s also assuming nobody has valid reasons for regular 50k deposits and that the teller doesn’t fear for their job or wellbeing. - Drug runner is a tricky one—how much agency do they have? Are they under duress? They likely intend to run drugs unless they’re in the know about their cargo. As other commenters posted, there’s also no official way to dilute responsibility here as the organization running drugs isn’t beholden to our legal system, so our theoretical drug runner is the only person available to punish. It’s an interesting thought experiment. I’d like to hear thoughts on how folks think stuff like this should be prosecuted — what outcomes do we want to promote and what actions would promote those outcomes?