(no title)
dmk23 | 12 years ago
Proof of fraud in the court of law is sufficient to pierce the corporate veil and hold the principals accountable. It is another thing that most of the so-called "corporate crimes" fail to clear even the basic bar of proof under due legal process. Just because someone disagrees with a business decision of a corporate executive does not make that decision a crime.
Unlimited liability would have the effect of stifling entrepreneurship and/or export of capital and jobs into more favorable jurisdictions, including offshore shells.
tptacek|12 years ago
einhverfr|12 years ago
I think we should just treat corporate C-level officers as unlimited partners with regard to decisions made under their watch. That would mean effectively that business debts that the corporation could not pay would fall on the officers to guarantee, and that things like product liability would be treated a little differently.
rayiner|12 years ago
I'd be interested in elaboration.
Guvante|12 years ago
Put another way, if I prove in a civil suit that you wronged me, that is not automatically enough proof to go after you criminally (which is likely what most people believe).