4 ms·

So we're talking about cases like threatening the world financial system, polluting the whole gulf of mexico, helping the sudanese government while the're commi

by jbooth 12y ago

So we're talking about cases like threatening the world financial system, polluting the whole gulf of mexico, helping the sudanese government while the're committing an actual genocide.. and you're saying the legal system shouldn't act because what if some CxO who profitted from those actions loses their job? Am I misreading you?

tbrownaw 12y ago
Or that settling out of court shouldn't be an option. Since if it is, everyone will take it and the system will attempt to corrupt itself.
- jbooth 12y ago
  If settling shouldn't be an option, and indictment is unthinkable, what's that leave for enforcement? I'm unhappy with the settlements and would have liked to see a big trial, it would have resulted in much bigger fines IMO for these deplorable actions. But that takes a lot more money from the government side. I wonder how the article author feels about "more federal spending".
nickff 12y ago
My personal opinion is that it does not make much sense to lay criminal charges against a corporation, especially if what "The Economist" is describing is true. I would prefer that the individuals (such as the CxO) responsible for crimes be charged with any relevant civil or criminal laws, and that the corporation only be charged with civil suits. The problem described here appears to be that no one is truly representing the interests of the shareholders, who are absorbing the losses; one of the questions the author(s) present(s) is whether it is even possible for any employee or officer of the corporation to represent the shareholders' interests if there is a conflict.
- jbooth 12y ago
  The shareholders absorb the profits, as well. If a CEO messes up at his job in a purely business sense and the shareholders lose money, that's ok, right? I mean it's the whole idea of having shareholders. I'd include "broke federal laws and exposed the company to serious financial liability" in the same (or a worse) category.
  - nickff 12y ago
    One has an especially significant right to representation when they are subject to an adverse judgement by a court. This is not about whether the CxO has done something wrong, it is about who should be held responsible, and what process will lead to a just result. In addition, if someone "broke federal laws and exposed the company to serious financial liability", the corporation(s) should be subject to civil judgement, and the individual(s) should be subject to civil and criminal penalties. To be clear, I do not object to adverse judgments, I only object to unjust procedures.
floppydisk 12y ago
But is that what the government was gunning for them about or were they doing an 'Al capone' and targeting tax fraud? Without details of the settlement, it's just projection to say that's what the settlement concerned. The argument isn't that the legal system should act, the argument is that the justice system should be transparent--especially when the people issuing the punishment are collecting the payout. Without transparency you create a perverse incentive for the bureaucratic agencies to hunt for targets, drum up charges, and collect windfalls. That's not in the interest of justice or a equitable legal system.
- jbooth 12y ago
  The AG doesn't walk home with an extra B in the bank after a settlement. He's not collecting the payout. As far as drumming up charges and collecting windfalls.. you think these companies with their legal departments would just hand that money over if they liked their position in court? You think things like "polluted the whole gulf of mexico" is a case of charges being drummed up? I would have liked to see these cases go to trial, too. But, from the DoJ's perspective, with the manpower they have, if they can wrap up a settlement and move on to the next case, that's a case they wouldn't have investigated if they were busy with litigation. If you really want to be upset about this type of thing, you should look into how often it affects normal people with normal criminal charges.

by jbooth 12y ago

tbrownaw 12y ago

Or that settling out of court shouldn't be an option. Since if it is, everyone will take it and the system will attempt to corrupt itself.

jbooth 12y ago
If settling shouldn't be an option, and indictment is unthinkable, what's that leave for enforcement? I'm unhappy with the settlements and would have liked to see a big trial, it would have resulted in much bigger fines IMO for these deplorable actions. But that takes a lot more money from the government side. I wonder how the article author feels about "more federal spending".

nickff 12y ago

My personal opinion is that it does not make much sense to lay criminal charges against a corporation, especially if what "The Economist" is describing is true. I would prefer that the individuals (such as the CxO) responsible for crimes be charged with any relevant civil or criminal laws, and that the corporation only be charged with civil suits. The problem described here appears to be that no one is truly representing the interests of the shareholders, who are absorbing the losses; one of the questions the author(s) present(s) is whether it is even possible for any employee or officer of the corporation to represent the shareholders' interests if there is a conflict.

jbooth 12y ago
The shareholders absorb the profits, as well. If a CEO messes up at his job in a purely business sense and the shareholders lose money, that's ok, right? I mean it's the whole idea of having shareholders. I'd include "broke federal laws and exposed the company to serious financial liability" in the same (or a worse) category.
- nickff 12y ago
  One has an especially significant right to representation when they are subject to an adverse judgement by a court. This is not about whether the CxO has done something wrong, it is about who should be held responsible, and what process will lead to a just result. In addition, if someone "broke federal laws and exposed the company to serious financial liability", the corporation(s) should be subject to civil judgement, and the individual(s) should be subject to civil and criminal penalties. To be clear, I do not object to adverse judgments, I only object to unjust procedures.

floppydisk 12y ago

But is that what the government was gunning for them about or were they doing an 'Al capone' and targeting tax fraud? Without details of the settlement, it's just projection to say that's what the settlement concerned. The argument isn't that the legal system should act, the argument is that the justice system should be transparent--especially when the people issuing the punishment are collecting the payout. Without transparency you create a perverse incentive for the bureaucratic agencies to hunt for targets, drum up charges, and collect windfalls. That's not in the interest of justice or a equitable legal system.

jbooth 12y ago
The AG doesn't walk home with an extra B in the bank after a settlement. He's not collecting the payout. As far as drumming up charges and collecting windfalls.. you think these companies with their legal departments would just hand that money over if they liked their position in court? You think things like "polluted the whole gulf of mexico" is a case of charges being drummed up? I would have liked to see these cases go to trial, too. But, from the DoJ's perspective, with the manpower they have, if they can wrap up a settlement and move on to the next case, that's a case they wouldn't have investigated if they were busy with litigation. If you really want to be upset about this type of thing, you should look into how often it affects normal people with normal criminal charges.