[mrguyorama]

>Executives have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, so if these actions are more profitable, they are legally required to perform them.

Zero percent of this is correct, and even if they had a legal responsibility to make "as much money as possible", which they don't, that would definitely not force them to commit crimes

The "fiduciary responsibility" is NOT "to make every dollar possible", it is a "don't purposely hurt the company" rule.

[tempfile]

Surely it must be at least fifty percent correct, since you grant the first clause :)

Of course the duty does not extend to committing crimes. I was being a bit cynical. You are right that profit maximisation and fiduciary duty are distinct concepts. In practice, though, the owners are profit maximisers. Companies that do not profit maximise are less attractive to investors, attract less investment, and are outcompeted.

To advocates of the market system, this is a feature and not a bug. But its effect is that companies operate "optimally" within the bounds of the law - said differently, the line between legal and illegal conduct is generally skirted as closely as possible. And when, as other commenters have noted, punishments for breaking the law are on average less than the profits incurred by illegal activity, selection bias means you are left with lawbreakers in the long run.

You are right that this is not a (direct) consequence of the fiduciary duty of an executive. I stand by my main point, though, that this behaviour is a consequence of the owners' selection criteria, and they deserve to be punished for it.