3 ms·
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 wh
by 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 agoHas it been shown in this case that the CEO directly setup incentive structures for employees to knowingly violate the law?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago1. 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 agoTherefore it sounds like the discussion here about holding the CEO directly responsible for these crimes is irrelevant and unenforceable.