The average joe would be in jail or face a heavy fine if they are caught doing illegal activities like tax evasion or stealing. Corporations on the other hand perform illegal activities like tax evasion, fraud, wage theft or price fixing on a MUCH larger scale, MUCH higher impact to the society, and higher frequency, yet they almost always get away with barely a slap on the wrist (i.e. a laughably small fine which is less than pocket change, and zero consequences for the c-suite). Is it because it’s easier to prosecute individual average joe’s as opposed to multiple billionaires who probably has connections with the justice system and government?
In: Other
The issue is that corporate crime is less about facts being in dispute and more about interpretation of the law, which is harder, riskier and more resource-incentive to prosecute.
For example, if someone goes after a company for fraud, the facts of the matter are not in dispute. At that point it’s about whether the company’s actions rose above the threshold required to constitute a crime. Did the company practice deceit at a level that violates criminal thresholds? Or did the plaintiff just fail to read the fine print?
Cases where interpretation of the law is at the heart are riskier to prosecute because the chances of judge and jury not agreeing with your interpretation are higher. They require more resources to pursue as well, so the system really wants to make sure the case is bulletproof before proceeding.
Many individual crimes are not about interpretation of the law, but facts in dispute. A guy says he was at the movie, but his fingerprints are on the murder weapon. Whether or not the act met the threshold for murder is not up for debate. These are easier and less risky to prosecute.
Latest Answers