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
If big enough a corporation becomes basically part of the country. They have enough people working for them, enough lawyers and enough influence on politics and economy that going after them becomes detrimental to the career of whoever does it.
Especially true in countries where corporations have intertwined with the government departments. For example Microsoft, just how many government departments and how many corporations around the world run using Microsoft windows? Even if tomorrow it was revealed that they were doing someting massively illegal it might get a few people fired and in jail but the corporation is going to pay a fine that it would earn in less than a week and continue on.
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.
[removed]
[removed]
To put it simply, time and money.
It’s a lot easier to incarcerate an individual for something they did than the CEO of a major company, because that CEO have the lawyers that are amazing at dragging out court dates and legal battles, which increases the likelihood of the prosecuting and investigative bodies making a technical mistake that the CEO gets off the hook for. The individual person doesn’t have that legal backing, so it’s a lot faster and easier, which costs the tax payers less money at the end of the court battle.
Also, there are ways the legal team can say that the CEO is providing a significantly higher good than the evil he is charged for, which can reduce the sentence.
It’s easier to prosecute individuals than companies who have a team of accountants working to do all the loopholes they can. I can assure you the majority of people who make money in cash or stealing from the government as well. I don’t know anyone who reports all their cash tips to the IRS. Similary all the people who have a small business or who do farming can abuse all the loopholes as well that you would say they’re doing illegal activities too.
Your premise is wrong. Individuals get away with illegal activities such as tax evasion all the time. Probably more often than corporations.
Corporations don’t commit crimes. Individuals do.
If a few people on the board are committing tax fraud on behalf of the company, is it fair to punish the shareholders who did nothing wrong and simply own shares? Or the people who just work there?
The problem is, there’s “diffusion of responsibility” No individual has done anything overtly wrong that a punishment for them makes sense.
1st way is that nothing illegal was actually done. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to the media. They are quick to bash big corporations because it makes headlines. Even if the business gets accused of something the media will report it, then it is found that no laws were broken the media won’t say anything.
2nd reason is in house counsel.
Because usually for businesses they can’t exactly just arrest the whole company. they usually just end up charging them some huge fine and the business just pays it and moves on with their day.
Latest Answers