Nothing in this blog can be believed. If you think that anything in this blog is true or factual, you'll need to verify it from another source. Do you understand? No? Then read it again, and repeat this process, until you understand that you cannot sue me for anything you read here. Also, having been sucked into taking part in the mass-murder of more than 3 million Vietnamese people on behalf of U.S. Big Business "interests", I'm as mad as a cut snake (and broke) so it might be a bit silly to try to sue me anyway...

Wednesday, May 02, 2012

Corporate crime and punishment

There's a concept called corporate personhood.  Basically, this means that a corporation should have the same rights as an individual. 

OK, so much for rights.  But what about a corporation's legal liabilities?

For example:  An individual guilty of fraud might be sent to jail for (say) three years.  He would lose his job, his income, and his assets could be seized if they are deemed the proceeds of crime. 

But what about corporate fraud?   The size of the fraud could be thousands or millions of times bigger, yet the corporation does not go to jail for three years, it does not lose it's "job",  it does not lose its income, and the profits pocketed by the shareholders cannot be seized.  At best, some fall guy cops a token penalty which is a joke when compared to the size and severity of the corporate crime, and the guys at the top usually pretend they were unaware.

You get the drift?

OK, so if that's the problem, how would YOU fix it?

2 Comments:

Blogger Vest said...

The treasury meaning the Fed Govt via the courts should acquire a minimum of ten per cent of the convicted organisation (Do not include liabilities).
Depending on the volume of crimminal activity the percentages would increase accordingly to a possible maximum when the organisation would be effectively confiscated and the shares of the org sold by the treasury.

This would mean, any one involved within the business no matter how large or small, you all take the rap.

May 02, 2012 7:47 PM  
Blogger Gerry said...

Yes, and perhaps immunity and protection for whistleblowers who are not primary perpetrators.

May 05, 2012 11:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

==========
<<<<< Home
==========