This wouldn't be satisfying. It is hard to accept that one person was responsible for all of the dishonesty. Even if you were "only" the CFO or COO, you must know what is happening in the company. What about all of the scientists who must have knowingly been reporting results that were not consistent with best (or legal) practice?
There is obviously a culture issue with "white collar" crime and a large hole in most countries ability to correctly police what is and isn't acceptable. There are also questions around "business secrets" and how these were used to justify a lack of scrutiny or due-diligence.
The CEO should go to prison. Obviously. This is what's wrong with our society -- too much upside to being dishonest, very little downside. People with integrity are practically punished for it.
And if it turns out that those CEOs had secret, buried research indicating toxicity, and continued to sell and even funded bogus research to counteract the legitimate stuff, then it will be justified.
That's an okay opinion, but I'd like to see CEOs criminally charged and go to jail if it's proven that they knew or should have known what was going on.
Why just the CEO? How about the CFO, the Board of Directors, and Chief Legal Consul? Maybe you could say the CEO is the last line and should be held accountable. It seems to me that you can't really do that since so many people could have been involved or even shielding the CEO from knowledge of the illegal activity. It's probably too onerous to investigate the individuals responsible.
I don't think you are wrong, there should be individuals held accountable.
Maybe but when you are CEO, the fact of "not knowing" should not protect you from consequences. If not jail, at least being banned from being a corporate officer in any capacity and relinquish your stocks/benefits/whatever so at least you remove the profit motive of fraud.
I think you would need a significant penalty aside from being unable to be a decision maker though. Perhaps the individual financial penalties you mentioned, if high enough, would accomplish this.
Otherwise some one found guilty of this could be replaced easily with another willing soul, be moved to another role in the company and paid a handsome salary as a reward, and or consult for others on how to commit fraud or run the company.
I am going to play the "Devil"'s advocate here, let's suppose that the report is true and that the company has committed all sorts of fraud. What would happen to the mass of people it employs it it were to go under? I just don't believe that entire families should suffer because the CEO has been lying to investors.
The solution is clear: prison.
The CEO knew that the company caused huge environmental damage, but lied about it. I don't think it could be simpler than that.
Of course the CEO won't go to prison, as he has too much power for that.
Maybe this is what it takes to get places like Equifax to take security seriously?
It seems extreme, but there are other cases where executives might be found criminally negligent. If a chemical company were knowingly poisoning people?
I agree ... to a point. Instead of dissolving the entire corporation, I think that there should be (in cases like this) where the "Corporate Veil" can be pierced and individuals (in this case, Executive Officers) can be be brought to trial, sentenced, and held personally accountable for their decisions - including prison sentences.
That would get the CxO in other companies attention, in a double-quick-time fashion.
I do agree that fines that seem astronomical to us (USD15Bn is huge in any personal context), to a corporation can be just The Cost of Doing Business. Depending on how long they've been doing this, they may have made twice that amount.
It's linked to a whole lot of deaths, it seems. How on earth can a company betray trust like this and continue to function? There needs to be a corporate equivalent of a life sentence, or a permanent ban from a certain industry for leadership involved in a business unit that conducts such malfeasance.
For criminal behaviour from the organisation, the burden of proof needs to be reversed. The CEO should need to prove they did not know and did not endorse tacitally or otherwise and would have reacted strongly to prevent and effectively sanction those responsible if they had found out in advance.
It's their job to know. Only if they are a victim of a genuine criminal conspiracy performed by other employees and it can be shown without the CEO's knowledge should there be any defence.
CEO's are quite happy to tell people to do things without telling them to do the thing. That has been going on for centuries. Shakespeare wrote whole plays about it.
People inside the company sold right before the dip. That is a fact.
Seems like you are arguing they should be free of consequences. We judge people on their actions all the time, it is difficult to know their intentions.
Other people have to be on the otherside of that trade. It’s publically good to know there are possible untrustworthy actors in a company, especially when it is extremely difficult to prove white collar crimes
We're not talking about a stolen candy bar. Slap the perps wrist and they get the point.
Executives will make a dishonest decision knowing the consequences. Then they'll make $100m off the decision, get fined $20m by Uncle Sam, get a $20m golden parachute, and then do it all over again next week. Because it made financial sense to break the law at that time.
Fining a billion dollar company because an individual decided to lie is a consequence-less punishment in the same way that stealing a $1 cheeseburger from McDonalds corporate is a victimless crime.
I think it'll be difficult to prove in court. To actually be found guilty they'll need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the executives knew there was problems it wasn't just ignorance or ineptness. That'll be difficult to show the jury unless they have some really good smoking gun evidence.
There is obviously a culture issue with "white collar" crime and a large hole in most countries ability to correctly police what is and isn't acceptable. There are also questions around "business secrets" and how these were used to justify a lack of scrutiny or due-diligence.
reply