Companies cannot go to jail for crimes, its not an available sanction.
so should any vp, second line and even front line managers if they collaborated.
whistleblowers should get government protection. not sure which government, though.
If they individually committed crimes and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, sure.
Of course, by DoJ’s own description of why they approved the deferred prosecution agreeement, that's absolutely not the case with the 737 Max charges.
Very easily. Companies as aggregates of people beyond just the decision makers can both do actions and have knowledge that the decisionmakers do not, and knowledge and action tend to be important in the definition of crimes.
The problem with modern C-suite culture is that it's no risk, all reward. This does not make sense, and seems unsustainable in the long term.
This is what criminal convictions with large fines do. The Board members and executives then get to spend years in shareholder lawsuits. If those suits turn up evidence of individual criminality, prosecution is on the table.
Seems like they really should. No business activities, commerce or services for the period of incarceration; the company effectively freezes or ceases to exist.
It would naturally be as life-destroying to the company and its relationships with business partners, customers, employees and those who rely on it as it is to the average joe.
So if you have a pension, should we be locking you up 'cause it was partially invested in Boeing?
Alternatively, you can have a specifically named role which is to be held liable? But then as far as the 'company' is concerned it's still just cost of doing business.
There's only three viable ultimate sanctions for a corporate entity: financial, being split up, and the death penalty.
No, they would be better off if they had known what the pilots were doing and stopped the fraud rather than allowing it.
> If there were potentially harsh penalties for allowing this to happen, regardless of knowledge, I think you’d see much better controls put in place, and the incentive would be to keep safety critical operations kept in-house, where they can be better monitored, rather than spun out to make the return on capital look better to public markets.
If you made inaccurate reports to governments a strict liability crime with a harsh pubishment not requiring intent, recklessness,or negligence, I think that would actually be a bad thing and lead people to actively avoid any activity or field of business that might require reporting to the government.
But, in any case, the fraud offenses at issue ARE NOT strict liability crimes now, so people without the requisite knowledge and intent cannot be guilty of them.
Of course, i am in the camp of changing the regulation such that outcomes that would be considered gross neglegence leading to loss of life is layed on the management, regardless of whether the decision is diffused or not. Aka, they hold the statutory responsibility, and is criminally liable - that's the price of being in management. They would get the tools as management to put in place preventative measures, which can be used to cover their ass.
It doesn't. That's not what "limited liability" is for.
> Limited liability is a legal status in which a person's financial liability is limited to a fixed sum, most commonly the value of a person's investment in a corporation, company or joint venture. If a company that provides limited liability to its investors is sued, then the claimants are generally entitled to collect only against the assets of the company, not the assets of its shareholders or other investors. A shareholder in a corporation or limited liability company is not personally liable for any of the debts of the company, other than for the amount already invested in the company and for any unpaid amount on the shares in the company, if any, except under special and rare circumstances permitting "piercing the corporate veil." The same is true for the members of a limited liability partnership and the limited partners in a limited partnership. By contrast, sole proprietors and partners in general partnerships are each liable for all the debts of the business (unlimited liability).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_liability
(emphasis mine)
Hold executives criminally liable. Fine companies, sure, but if people die from gross negligence or due to processes endorsed by leadership, that should end with prison time as a warning to others. Don't let them say they didn't know and that the decisions were spread out over people and time. The buck stops with leadership -- that is, ostensibly, why they make the big bucks. If they couldn't know due to spread out decision making then they set up and perpetuated the wrong system.