|
|
|
|
|
|
by abiox
3233 days ago
|
|
|
> A fund policing the habits of an investment is literally the people who own the business policing the actions of their employees this seems to be equivocating on "policing". > That has nothing to do with indemnifying someone from the financial consequences of their actions you stated "criminal actions". if kalanick committed a crime, it is the state that pursues this in court. afaik all that is occurring is that benchmark is pursuing a civil case. > Are there no prior cases where board actions to create board seats were reverse because of fraud? are you referring to criminal or civil wrongdoing? > I'm actually unsure how you think any of this should work based on your objections it just seemed to me that you were suggesting private entities pursue criminals and "fight crime", perhaps as some form of vigilantism. ...perhaps like batman? |
|
|
That's actually not how it works -- there can be both civil and criminal proceedings for a case, and very often criminal proceedings follow a complaint by a victim. The criminal proceedings deals with punishments related to breaking the law; the civil proceedings deal with damages caused to people (or businesses) by the crimes.
Also, indemnification has nothing to do with prosecution versus civil suit -- it's an agreement to pay the damages and fines related to the person's actions.
> suggesting private entities pursue criminals and "fight crime", perhaps as some form of vigilantism
They absolutely should!
By filing complaints and suing for damages that result from the actions of criminals -- which is what the fund is doing here.
A criminal may still be liable for damages via civil suit even if there's a lack of prosecution or an acquittal. People can (and should!) make use of the courts to pursue criminals.