3 ms·
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
by 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.
- acdha 3y agoThat’s why we have different crimes. If your business sells unsafe food, you don’t get off unscathed if they can’t prove that you intentionally poisoned the victims. If nothing else, any officer of the company who claims to have no idea what the people under them are doing should be worried about reconciling that with their fiduciary duties – it’s possible that they could be carefully scammed, of course, but that still requires them to show that their controls met a minimum level which seems infeasible in many cases.
- Guvante 3y agoDon't listen to the internet... The defense isn't "we had no idea about anything" it is "here is the mountain of evidence that we had that shows everything was fine". In this case those above likely have similar evidence to the regulators. Passing tests.