3 ms·
Or you could just toss people in jail. This case is clearly wire fraud if the company knowing provided fraudulent hiring rates to get people to pay money for
by adrr 3y ago
Or you could just toss people in jail. This case is clearly wire fraud if the company knowing provided fraudulent hiring rates to get people to pay money for a service.
- shkkmo 3y agoWhy not both?
- natpalmer1776 3y agoBecause of diffusion of responsibility, wherein the person taking the fall was only one of perhaps three dozen individuals who collaborated to make the relevant business decisions. If you to set the precedent of consolidating the consequences and doling them out to the relevant executive officer you’ll end up with c-suite executives around the country throwing their personal and corporate influence into getting that precedent neutralized.
- shkkmo 3y agoHow doed charging executives in addition to fining a company an amount that puts the card company into unresolvable bankruptcy lead to "diffusion of responsibility"? Yeah, rich CEOs and investors are opposed to taking any responsibility for their actions, but that doesn't we shouldn't try to hold them responsible.
- natpalmer1776 3y agoIt doesn’t lead to a diffusion of responsibility, the diffusion exists independently by nature of how a business operates. A CEO will green light high level strategic direction, but the crimes described here could easily emerge from the implementation of that directive at lower levels of the company. “Plausible deniability”
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoThe CEO in that case would be culpable for culturing a culture of criminality. The buck stops at the top.
- natpalmer1776 3y agoI mean, I agree with the sentiment but good luck codifying that in a law that won’t be abused to convict innocent people who were convenient patsies while letting guilty ones walk free due to the “subjective” nature.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoSarbanes Oxley already codifies corporate officer responsibility into law, so there's a pretty clear precedent.
- natpalmer1776 3y agoDoes Sarbanes Oxley codify culturing a culture? As far as my cursory glance at wikipedia has informed me, the act itself works around the “plausible deniability” by requiring certain disclosures containing factual information be signed off by key executive staff rendering it impossible for them to say “I didn’t know!” with regards to specific material information. The blanket concept of holding executive staff accountable for the wrongdoings of the company would mean a lot more disclosures, forms, sign offs, etc. for “any” eventuality that would render the position pointless as they wouldn’t have any time to actually do anything useful. Because at the end of the day how do you prove that joe schmoe CEO actually fostered a culture that resulted in criminal acts? This isn’t even mentioning the individuals who were actually involved and directly culpable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]