undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTomMckenny6y ago0 comments

Strange this is so far outside the Overton window that it can be read as a joke.

In cases involving lower valued assets, the owner is almost always punishable: his dog bites you, it's his fault. His contractor lays bad wiring that burns down your house, it's his fault. His kids misdeeds are often legally his fault. And even if he loans his car to someone who crashes into it's legally his fault.

But behind a corporate shield, nothing is ever the owners fault. The more value the company has, the less possibility any owner is to receive legally blame. Not that there's much possibility in the first place.

This remarkable and thoroughly ingrained inconsistency does consistently benefit a certain category of person.

A very practice and effective solution would be to seize some chunk of the shares/value based on the size of the crime and auction them off. The proceeds going to victims or the like and weakening or removing irresponsible investors in favor of someone else. But this option is simply unthinkable and instead there's endless debate on the CEO's culpability.

0 comments

Sacho6y ago

Your examples are flawed. In two of the cases, the "assets"(children and dog) are specifically not deemed responsible due to their lack of maturity/lack of understanding of societal norms - so we instead find the "owner"(or more properly named, parent/guardian) at fault - they are supposed to keep the children or pet in line.

In the case of a loaned car, you are not liable for damages that the person you loaned the car to causes(perhaps you're confusing it with insurance liability?). I don't know about the contractor case.

How is your "practical and effective" solution any different from a fine? You fine the company $300 mil, or you seize $300 mil of shares and sell them.

TomMckennyOP6y ago

A fine is simply passed on to customers or employees. If the fine is great enough, it could result in bankruptcy which harms employees and potentially customers.

Asset seizure targets the ones culpable rather than just transferring some or all of that burden. And regardless of the size of the penalty, there is no danger to third parties like employees, customers or other organizations along the supply chain.

If the above examples are inadequate, I will add civil asset forfeiture which is applied widely to crimes on the low end of the economic spectrum, even without convictions, but with great parsimony to crimes on the upper end even with conviction.

freddie_mercury6y ago

I can't quite follow what you're arguing.

Are you saying that anyone who owns Wal-Mart stock should go to jail? That's who the owners of Wal-Mart are.

sooheon6y ago

They should pay the price in proportion to their share. Jail time for 1e-9 ownership is ludicrous, but something like the following might actually be a proportional deterrent.

> A very practice and effective solution would be to seize some chunk of the shares/value based on the size of the crime and auction them off. The proceeds going to victims or the like and weakening or removing irresponsible investors in favor of someone else. But this option is simply unthinkable and instead there's endless debate on the CEO's culpability.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse