2 ms·
Isn't that already the case? For instance Wells Fargo was fined $185M for fraudulently opening accounts customers didn't want[1]. Wells fargo (ie. management) w
by gruez 2y ago
Isn't that already the case? For instance Wells Fargo was fined $185M for fraudulently opening accounts customers didn't want[1]. Wells fargo (ie. management) weren't scheming to fraudulently open accounts. They only set aggressive sales goals, and that caused some employees to go rogue and commit fraud themselves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan...
- wahnfrieden 2y agoHow do you know that lacked intent? It just sounds like cover for intent
- gruez 2y agoThe point isn't that wells fargo management didn't scheme to intentionally defraud customers, it's that the government was able to punish wells fargo for defrauding customers without having to prove they intentionally schemed to do so.
- rectang 2y agoI'm skeptical that the intentions of the Wells Fargo executives were pure and white as the driven snow. The incentives align to encourage executives to commit crimes in service of short-term gains — even in the extreme case of Wells Fargo, Carrie Tolstedt and John Stumpf have both avoided prison time and ended up money ahead to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, even after clawbacks and fines. Not only shouldn't intent matter, we should assume the worst. Whether assuming the worst is a workable enforcement regime, I don't know — but it most accurately models a reality where the most rational behavior for executives is indifference to the law.