[xboxnolifes]

Thats the excuse given, but it makes no sense. All you do is state "CEOs are culpable for the actions of the campany". Bam, problem solved.

[bluefirebrand]

I genuinely used to think that the reason CEOs and other executives made as much money as they did was because they were accepting the risk of steering a large company that might screw them

Boy was I wrong. They have zero risk and pure upside of being an executive. Oh it's a hard job, it's stressful?

So is mine and I get paid peanuts in comparison!

[raincom]

That requires a change in criminal law, with an exception of RICO. However, the DOJ will not use RICO against the elite class, as ex-prosecutors end up working for the same elite through law firms.

[eru]

That's a bit silly. Tough prosecutors and regulators get top jobs all the time. Being tough is actually a good way to raise your profile.

[raincom]

RICO statues are slapped against a specific set of people: Mafia. Without RICO, you can't just percolate up the culpability to the CEO without a solid proof. The issue here: laws, courts, how courts look at evidence. With RICO, the bar is lower.

In any large organization, there is a legal department, there is a chief legal office/General counsel. These guys train CEO enough how to pass down messages. When I was a salesman, my training team and my managers never told us to lie. However, the pressure tactics they use force sales people to lie. That's how things work.

Even if some assistant attorney/prosecutor wants to use RICO, he/she will be overruled in the same department.

[eru]

You are right about RICO.

Sorry, I was generalising a bit without making that explicit:

> However, the [authorities] will not [use some laws] against the elite class, as ex-prosecutors end up working for the same elite through law firms.

I meant that in practice the revolving door seems to reward tough stances more than it seems to punish them.