3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoThe 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 agoOne 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.