3 ms·

I really don't get that. I would think it's simple enough for the CEO to face criminal charges, unless they can clearly show which other individual(s) are resp

I really don't get that. I would think it's simple enough for the CEO to face criminal charges, unless they can clearly show which other individual(s) are responsible, or very clearly demonstrate there was some special and exceptional circumstances that necessitated the exception. Instead we call companies people and let them wash things away with money. No one faces guilt, maybe a CEO 'steps down' to spend more time with family until the anti-competitive clause finished and they pop up somewhere else.

danaris 3y ago
As someone on a sibling thread noted, if you limit the personal liability to the CEO, then that creates a strong incentive to make the CEO position into "highly-paid fall guy" while the other people responsible—quite probably even the people primarily responsible—laugh all the way to the bank. At a minimum, liability must be possible for the entire C-suite and the board. Depending on the nature and degree of the atrocities being committed, I can see a pretty strong argument for liability for anyone involved in any way who's being paid more than, say, national median salary + 50%—that is, anyone for whom "I was just following orders" doesn't have with it the background of "and if I disobeyed, I would risk destitution for myself and my family." The horrible effects of some of these decisions, and the number of people who have to suffer them, mean I have no compunction about comparing acts like these to war crimes, and we don't allow "I was just following orders" as a defense to those, either.
- agentgumshoe 3y ago
  I was thinking that if the CEO needs to show who is responsible, they would make sure their auditing and retention/archiving practices are in good order and tested and accountability would improve all-round. But yeah, there's always complexities that make things difficult... Still, you're paid tens or hundreds of millions, it should come with some risk.

danaris 3y ago

As someone on a sibling thread noted, if you limit the personal liability to the CEO, then that creates a strong incentive to make the CEO position into "highly-paid fall guy" while the other people responsible—quite probably even the people primarily responsible—laugh all the way to the bank. At a minimum, liability must be possible for the entire C-suite and the board. Depending on the nature and degree of the atrocities being committed, I can see a pretty strong argument for liability for anyone involved in any way who's being paid more than, say, national median salary + 50%—that is, anyone for whom "I was just following orders" doesn't have with it the background of "and if I disobeyed, I would risk destitution for myself and my family." The horrible effects of some of these decisions, and the number of people who have to suffer them, mean I have no compunction about comparing acts like these to war crimes, and we don't allow "I was just following orders" as a defense to those, either.

agentgumshoe 3y ago
I was thinking that if the CEO needs to show who is responsible, they would make sure their auditing and retention/archiving practices are in good order and tested and accountability would improve all-round. But yeah, there's always complexities that make things difficult... Still, you're paid tens or hundreds of millions, it should come with some risk.