[Ekaros]

Let's say company has stock price of 100. Then it kills million people. Court decides to set fine of 99%. Now the stock price stays the same, but next time holder of share sells it 99% of price goes as fine to society.

Their liability is limited to that 100. Just that next time they transact on the share they entirely justly lose most of it. As they did horrific job in controlling their property.

[hef19898]

So you propose punishing people whom have nothing to do with the crime? Interesting take on the rule of law, to say the least.

[Ekaros]

They owned the company that did the crime. They lose the company. Seems entirely fair for funding the crime...

[hef19898]

That's not even how criminal law works... If I borrow money to someone, that someone buys a gun with that money to rob a bank, I am, rightfully, not guilty of bank robbery or any other crime. Unless I borrowed the money knowing I funded a bank robbery, in which case I would be a co-conspirator. As a simple share owner, I am far from that. Heck, even as a majority shareholder I am far from that.

And by the way, if I am a memeber of the board and my management and I engange in anti-trust violations together, I am legally and criminally liable already under existing law. If I am a member of the board, and my management does something illegal without my knowledge, I am off the hook as well (again rightly so). If I engage in a cover up, well, then things change again (and again rightly so).

Some people have weird ideas about the rule of law is supposed to work in a democracy.