[anovikov]

When it comes to criminal offences, they are pretty much within the law, well except they can afford better lawyers so usually get away with minimum legally possible punishment.

Companies and the concept of limited liability exists to make innovation possible. No one will start a startup knowing they will have their house confiscated and go to prison if it fails. And, because majority of money businessmen make is the stock worth, company being insolvent and thus it's stock losing all value is in itself a punishment heavy enough for the founders.

[lucianbr]

> No one will start a startup knowing they will have their house confiscated and go to prison if it fails.

What does that have to do with anything? We're not discussing a case of VW making bad business decisions and losing money.

If you start a company and break the law and harm people, you should have your house confiscated and/or go to prison. If you can't take this responsibility, just don't start the startup, that's perfect.

You are creating confusion about the subject being discussed in order to defend criminals.

[SoftTalker]

Yes that was a bad example. The "limited liability" concept applies to financial losses, not crimes.

[nemonemo]

We need to balance the benefit and the downside of the limited liability in corporations. If innovation no longer becomes beneficial for the society and only beneficial for a small number of people, perhaps the society may need to reconsider the concept.

[thatguy0900]

Why would you go to jail unless you're doing something illegal? Are you honestly saying startups should be legally exempt from pollution laws and allowed to cheat brazenly on commissions tests by public agencies? It's fair for rich people to just lose some income(and still be rich) for crimes while poor people have to go to jail is honestly a unhinged take