4 ms·

The CEO of a company with 50k+ employees can't be held directly responsible for every single action of their employees, it sounds good since we all hate banks n

The CEO of a company with 50k+ employees can't be held directly responsible for every single action of their employees, it sounds good since we all hate banks now apparently, but in real life that would be ridiculous. Sure if the CEO was directly involved, or had specific knowledge that specific people were committing specific crimes, and ignored it that would be a different story.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Like it or not, Sarbanes-Oxley is the law (since 2002). We wound up with that law because of executives who built incentive structures within their companies which they knew would cause unlawful behavior while keeping themselves one or more layers removed from the actual criminality. The gambit was to feign surprise and throw the "rouge troops" under the bus if they got caught. That gambit is played out now. You missed your opportunity to play the naive CEO card https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME#t=12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME#t=12
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Has it been shown in this case that the CEO directly setup incentive structures for employees to knowingly violate the law?
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    1. I don't know. 2. It isn't necessary after Sarbox. 3. It doesn't matter because they haven't been sued with Sarbox. They've been caught red-handed breaking plenty of other laws.
    - res0nat0r 11y ago
      Therefore it sounds like the discussion here about holding the CEO directly responsible for these crimes is irrelevant and unenforceable.
yborg 11y ago
By your reasoning, mafia dons should never have been prosecuted, since by design in these organizations it is very rare that they personally direct the commission of crimes. This is why RICO was created, and given conspiracies like the LIBOR-rigging scandal, I am perplexed that financial executives aren't being charged under RICO. Because if there is anything that is a Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organization, it's the modern international bank over the last 20 years.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago

Like it or not, Sarbanes-Oxley is the law (since 2002). We wound up with that law because of executives who built incentive structures within their companies which they knew would cause unlawful behavior while keeping themselves one or more layers removed from the actual criminality. The gambit was to feign surprise and throw the "rouge troops" under the bus if they got caught. That gambit is played out now. You missed your opportunity to play the naive CEO card https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME#t=12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME#t=12

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
res0nat0r 11y ago
Has it been shown in this case that the CEO directly setup incentive structures for employees to knowingly violate the law?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  1. I don't know. 2. It isn't necessary after Sarbox. 3. It doesn't matter because they haven't been sued with Sarbox. They've been caught red-handed breaking plenty of other laws.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    Therefore it sounds like the discussion here about holding the CEO directly responsible for these crimes is irrelevant and unenforceable.

yborg 11y ago

By your reasoning, mafia dons should never have been prosecuted, since by design in these organizations it is very rare that they personally direct the commission of crimes. This is why RICO was created, and given conspiracies like the LIBOR-rigging scandal, I am perplexed that financial executives aren't being charged under RICO. Because if there is anything that is a Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organization, it's the modern international bank over the last 20 years.