More and more I think part of the problem is the burden of proof. It's too easy for executives to hide behind plausible deniability. There needs to be a presu

More and more I think part of the problem is the burden of proof. It's too easy for executives to hide behind plausible deniability. There needs to be a presumption of individual executive guilt if bad conduct by the company is found to have occurred. In other words, if it happens on your watch, you are guilty of it. Another way forward is that the presumption of innocence should be a sliding scale based on the amount a person has benefited. So if you made $100 million from the company, the bar is very low; you don't get to make $100 million unless everything is absolutely squeaky clean. If you were just an average joe taking home a $50k paycheck, you get much more benefit of doubt. So it's basically like making a lot of money off any endeavor is itself something that requires extra-good conduct; the default position is no one gets to make a lot of money at all.