6 ms·

What do you suggest? I don't have an answer but it seems difficult to penalise a corporation in any meaningful way.

askvictor 3y ago
Have the owner/s, management, board held personally liable. Jail time. Pierce the corporate veil.
riffraff 3y ago
Send people to jail in addition to the fines. The corporation won't suffer but the next people will have a disincentive to commit illegal acts.
- askvictor 3y ago
  How do you stop management who make the decisions from scapegoating some junior underling?
  - dwattttt 3y ago
    Legal process, discovery, and corporate records.
    - askvictor 3y ago
      Ideally, sure, but I doubt these kinds of decisions generally get written down so there's probably no paper trail. I suppose if you just held the CEO ultimately responsible...
  - Mtinie 3y ago
    Or, we collectively decide that it’s unlikely scandals of this scope did not previously pass the CEO’s desk at some point in the timeline and start with penalties at the top, and then move down the line. My argument can be expanded to the fact that if a “rogue underling” did this without C-level input that leadership at the company is negligent at the least, or attempting to abstract responsibility and hide the issue behind deniability at the worst. Addendum: I should have picked a better phrase to start with. I agree that the legal process is the correct way to proceed, but once a determination of culpability is made, hiding behind layers of leadership should not be the defacto norm.
    - 0xDEADFED5 3y ago
      "collectively deciding" is a lynch mob. remembering the danger of such thinking seems more important every day.
      - Mtinie 3y ago
        Really? That’s an interesting take and one that I hadn’t considered. I need to think about how I feel regarding the underlying premise but I can certainly see where you can make the argument. I agree that jumping to lynch mob reactions aren’t helpful. My original point—-which was likely not worded well—is that the humans which make up “society” need to reach a point where they can recognize that corporations make and follow-through on decisions because they are supported by sign-off from our fellow humans, not because of an abstract corporate mechanism. Thank you for the sidebar.
      - lightedman 3y ago
        "'collectively deciding' is a lynch mob" Gee, what do you call a jury decision, then? A non-collective decision?
  - nerdbert 3y ago
    Require more accountability if a company wants to enjoy the benefits of incorporation. Decision processes have to be documented and responsibilities clearly delineated. Employees have the opportunity and duty to ensure their work is correctly described. The current system isn't working, it's producing too much abuse.
wongarsu 3y ago
A corporation is made of people. Fraud and reckless endangerment are crimes, even when you do them on company time. And once you have middle managers convicted, there are gang-related laws that allow you to easily travel up the chain of command. The legal frameworks exist. There is just no will to enforce laws if the crime is done on company time.
- pjerem 3y ago
  Corporations are organized to dilute responsibility. In corporations, nobody knows what the other employees really do, nobody know where the decisions are coming from and why. Employees and managers make stupid decisions under pressure. You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job.
  - b112 3y ago
    Except that's not wholly true. The CFO is one example. Bery specific duties, responsibilities, and can pverride anyone on certain things. We need more of this. Privacy, security officers woth specific duties. Same with anything such as safety.
  - acdha 3y ago
    > You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job. Sure you can: if you have accounting fraud the CFO is liable, and the only question is whether it’s for deliberate fraud or negligence but in either case the buck stops at the top. The reason why such charges are uncommon is because those people tend to be politically well-connected, not because it’s impossible to come up with a regulatory solution.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      Negligence isn't enough for most crimes. There is a Mens Rea test which requires deliberate illegal action or gross negligence. Lots of these aren't "person up top said to cheat" but usually "person up top has unreasonable requirements". Can you really go after someone who was pig headed and expected the impossible because their subordinates cheated? In contrast civil penalties are appropriate here, just need to adjust the amount to discourage the behavior.
xyst 3y ago
For one, corporate executives signing off on these cost cutting measures need to be jailed. Customers that own impacted models need to be compensated and vehicles bought back by Toyota at retail price (not depreciated, current value). Countries need to hold corporations accountable by blacklisting import of their vehicles for X amount of years. State and local governments need to issue multibillion dollar fines.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Waterluvian 3y ago
Justify the incredible salaries by attaching criminal liability in certain circumstances to the officer roles of a company.
- astrange 3y ago
  Japanese executives don't have incredible salaries, and Japan already has well defined cultural expectations for what companies should do if there's a scandal. (It involves the execs crying at press conferences.)
  - RCitronsBroker 3y ago
    (and extra-Deep tepco bows)
colechristensen 3y ago
Punish the company? Fire the board and the C-suite, wipe out all the shareholders and run an IPO, take the proceeds as a fine or restitution for those affected. Or if you’re feeling particularly mean just deny the corporate entity’s rights (and parents) to do business at all, force the owners to run a fire sale for any value they can grab. You penalize corporations with fines proportional to their total value, removing permissions to operate in certain ways, break them apart, or just legally dissolve them entirely. The problem is all too often fines are like 30 seconds of revenue. Make it 50% of market cap forcing them to raise cash or pay the fine in stock.
- TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
  What, if any, might be some of the unintended consequences of this?
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    Tens of thousands of employees without work, and if they have company stock, they lose their retirement. That's the usual reason given for not imposing a corporate death penalty.
  - colechristensen 3y ago
    The “chickenshit” arguments against this is that it will hurt employees of the fined company or investors who didn’t know any better. Grandma’s IRA is full of index stocks, she didn’t choose any of this and shouldn’t be punished. It’s not so hard to motivate media to spread this message. The problem with that argument is that it makes it so nobody is ever responsible, competition must act the same or risk losing to the misbehaving competitors, and all you have to do to be above the law is have employees, investors, and misbehavior complicated enough to be difficult to understand who is responsible.
  - maeil 3y ago
    None that make a significant dent in the benefits. The societal benefits of getting companies to actually abide by the law on a wide scale are much larger than any realistic consequence. Including the death of a few big companies, which yes, may mean unemployment for all of their employees. And if you want to prevent this, nationalization (which can be temporary) is always an option, as was seen in many countries with banks around 2008-2009.
beefield 3y ago
Not sure if you mean difficult politically or technically. Politically I have no answers, but technically, I assume that you would not need that many fines that wipe out shareholder equity, most of corporate debt and all of board/C-suite wealth before corporations would take law seriously. I think there are states that are fond of three strikes and out type laws, maybe those could be applied to corps as well?
Zardoz89 3y ago
Nationalize it
dontlaugh 3y ago
In the worst cases, execution of the company and imprisonment for those steering it.
rasz 3y ago
Takata treatment.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago
Corporate death penalty. Lifetime ban for all implicated from working in positions of authority or safety critical positions.

Have the owner/s, management, board held personally liable. Jail time. Pierce the corporate veil.

Send people to jail in addition to the fines. The corporation won't suffer but the next people will have a disincentive to commit illegal acts.

askvictor 3y ago
How do you stop management who make the decisions from scapegoating some junior underling?
- dwattttt 3y ago
  Legal process, discovery, and corporate records.
  - askvictor 3y ago
    Ideally, sure, but I doubt these kinds of decisions generally get written down so there's probably no paper trail. I suppose if you just held the CEO ultimately responsible...
- Mtinie 3y ago
  Or, we collectively decide that it’s unlikely scandals of this scope did not previously pass the CEO’s desk at some point in the timeline and start with penalties at the top, and then move down the line. My argument can be expanded to the fact that if a “rogue underling” did this without C-level input that leadership at the company is negligent at the least, or attempting to abstract responsibility and hide the issue behind deniability at the worst. Addendum: I should have picked a better phrase to start with. I agree that the legal process is the correct way to proceed, but once a determination of culpability is made, hiding behind layers of leadership should not be the defacto norm.
  - 0xDEADFED5 3y ago
    "collectively deciding" is a lynch mob. remembering the danger of such thinking seems more important every day.
    - Mtinie 3y ago
      Really? That’s an interesting take and one that I hadn’t considered. I need to think about how I feel regarding the underlying premise but I can certainly see where you can make the argument. I agree that jumping to lynch mob reactions aren’t helpful. My original point—-which was likely not worded well—is that the humans which make up “society” need to reach a point where they can recognize that corporations make and follow-through on decisions because they are supported by sign-off from our fellow humans, not because of an abstract corporate mechanism. Thank you for the sidebar.
    - lightedman 3y ago
      "'collectively deciding' is a lynch mob" Gee, what do you call a jury decision, then? A non-collective decision?
- nerdbert 3y ago
  Require more accountability if a company wants to enjoy the benefits of incorporation. Decision processes have to be documented and responsibilities clearly delineated. Employees have the opportunity and duty to ensure their work is correctly described. The current system isn't working, it's producing too much abuse.

wongarsu 3y ago

A corporation is made of people. Fraud and reckless endangerment are crimes, even when you do them on company time. And once you have middle managers convicted, there are gang-related laws that allow you to easily travel up the chain of command. The legal frameworks exist. There is just no will to enforce laws if the crime is done on company time.

pjerem 3y ago
Corporations are organized to dilute responsibility. In corporations, nobody knows what the other employees really do, nobody know where the decisions are coming from and why. Employees and managers make stupid decisions under pressure. You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job.
- b112 3y ago
  Except that's not wholly true. The CFO is one example. Bery specific duties, responsibilities, and can pverride anyone on certain things. We need more of this. Privacy, security officers woth specific duties. Same with anything such as safety.
- acdha 3y ago
  > You can find who is responsible legally but you’ll never grab the people who profit from the wrong culture they established that incentivize bad behaviors and punish employees that are just here to do their job. Sure you can: if you have accounting fraud the CFO is liable, and the only question is whether it’s for deliberate fraud or negligence but in either case the buck stops at the top. The reason why such charges are uncommon is because those people tend to be politically well-connected, not because it’s impossible to come up with a regulatory solution.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Negligence isn't enough for most crimes. There is a Mens Rea test which requires deliberate illegal action or gross negligence. Lots of these aren't "person up top said to cheat" but usually "person up top has unreasonable requirements". Can you really go after someone who was pig headed and expected the impossible because their subordinates cheated? In contrast civil penalties are appropriate here, just need to adjust the amount to discourage the behavior.

xyst 3y ago

For one, corporate executives signing off on these cost cutting measures need to be jailed. Customers that own impacted models need to be compensated and vehicles bought back by Toyota at retail price (not depreciated, current value). Countries need to hold corporations accountable by blacklisting import of their vehicles for X amount of years. State and local governments need to issue multibillion dollar fines.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Waterluvian 3y ago

Justify the incredible salaries by attaching criminal liability in certain circumstances to the officer roles of a company.

astrange 3y ago
Japanese executives don't have incredible salaries, and Japan already has well defined cultural expectations for what companies should do if there's a scandal. (It involves the execs crying at press conferences.)
- RCitronsBroker 3y ago
  (and extra-Deep tepco bows)

colechristensen 3y ago

Punish the company? Fire the board and the C-suite, wipe out all the shareholders and run an IPO, take the proceeds as a fine or restitution for those affected. Or if you’re feeling particularly mean just deny the corporate entity’s rights (and parents) to do business at all, force the owners to run a fire sale for any value they can grab. You penalize corporations with fines proportional to their total value, removing permissions to operate in certain ways, break them apart, or just legally dissolve them entirely. The problem is all too often fines are like 30 seconds of revenue. Make it 50% of market cap forcing them to raise cash or pay the fine in stock.

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
What, if any, might be some of the unintended consequences of this?
- zdragnar 3y ago
  Tens of thousands of employees without work, and if they have company stock, they lose their retirement. That's the usual reason given for not imposing a corporate death penalty.
- colechristensen 3y ago
  The “chickenshit” arguments against this is that it will hurt employees of the fined company or investors who didn’t know any better. Grandma’s IRA is full of index stocks, she didn’t choose any of this and shouldn’t be punished. It’s not so hard to motivate media to spread this message. The problem with that argument is that it makes it so nobody is ever responsible, competition must act the same or risk losing to the misbehaving competitors, and all you have to do to be above the law is have employees, investors, and misbehavior complicated enough to be difficult to understand who is responsible.
- maeil 3y ago
  None that make a significant dent in the benefits. The societal benefits of getting companies to actually abide by the law on a wide scale are much larger than any realistic consequence. Including the death of a few big companies, which yes, may mean unemployment for all of their employees. And if you want to prevent this, nationalization (which can be temporary) is always an option, as was seen in many countries with banks around 2008-2009.

beefield 3y ago

Not sure if you mean difficult politically or technically. Politically I have no answers, but technically, I assume that you would not need that many fines that wipe out shareholder equity, most of corporate debt and all of board/C-suite wealth before corporations would take law seriously. I think there are states that are fond of three strikes and out type laws, maybe those could be applied to corps as well?

Zardoz89 3y ago

Nationalize it

dontlaugh 3y ago

In the worst cases, execution of the company and imprisonment for those steering it.

rasz 3y ago

Takata treatment.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 3y ago

Corporate death penalty. Lifetime ban for all implicated from working in positions of authority or safety critical positions.