Unions Want Crime Of Corporate Killing

[Sebrof]

I have to admit to being ignorant to how this works, but it has already been raised that criminal actions are not insurable - and it will be the directors in the dock not the shareholders. Yes the company (and hence ultimately the shareholders) will probably pay for the defence costs, but the responsibilities and the criminality will rest with the director(s).

 

God give me strength. A company is a legal entity, and it will be the COMPANY in the dock, NOT the directors. That's the WHOLE point of this thread; that it SHOULD be the directors in the dock (if they are the guilty party), but that instead, it will be the COMPANY. The "criminality" WON'T rest with the directors.

 

 

After reading wiki for a bit I see the obvious issue is that the company is fined and not the directors - so the shareholder will pay - I suppose I get Sebrof's point, BUT the same arguement I used early still applies - this is a genuine inscntive for shareholders/owners to take an interest in the actions of their agents. "I didn't know" isn't an excuse. Shareholder's have an active interest in ensuring good corporate governance - this is another incentive for them to ensure their safety procedures aren't incompetent.

 

How are you, as a shareholder in a public company (like BP, say), going to "take an interest"? Are you going to fly to Texas City to see with your own eyes that BP are doing things properly? Are you going to ask to see the board minutes? (I can tell you that they won't let you.) Are you going to personally interview a representative sample of employees to get their views?

 

Of course not. In a large modern company the shareholders are totally in the dark as to what actually goes on. This law won't provide the slightest incentive for shareholders to do anything.

[Sebrof]

If enough charges of corporate manslaughter are made then shareholders may start to take an interest in such things as good corporate governance as a preventive measure. Without this offence then shareholders can just continue to sit back and wait for the dividend cheque to plop on the mat.

 

How many deaths will it take before shareholders "may" take an interest? And how will they do this?

 

Much more effective, surely, to charge individual directors with manslaughter. Then you won't need "enough charges". One will do, pour encourager les autres.

[Gladys]

That is why shareholders should attend AGMs and question the directors closely. Companies can already be fined for H&S breaches, so I really do not see what your issue is here. As I said before, the shareholders can remove the directors responsible. Problem with making the directors personally liable is the extent of their personal assets to meet the fine. This also, perhaps, reinforces the need for shareholders to be vigilant in the calibre of the directors they appoint or re-elect to manage the business on their behalf.

 

The difficulties you outline for the shareholder in overseeing the work of their elected board exist for other issues in which a shareholder may be interested, such as fraud preventation measures, finanical manipulation, ethical trading issues etc. all of which can impact on the company's ability to pay dividends and to maintain capital value. I do not see how this is different. A shareholder cannot walk in and examine the books or systems of the company, but they can remove the directors if they do not like how they perform or if their actions bring about a charge of corporate manslaughter.

[WilDDog]

1. The "aggrieved party" will be DEAD! That's why the charge is manslaughter.

 

2. The criminal law is not about compensation; it's about punishment. Nobody, alive or dead, will "get what's owed".

 

3. "Everyone" shouldn't be accountable; just the guilty. Certainly not the innocent tax-payers or shareholders, who will have to pay the fine.

 

 

You don't really have any idea what's going on here, do you?

 

1 yes someone is dead, which in this day and age shouldn't happen with all the Health and Safety Regulations. BUT accidents still happen for reasons known and unknown.

 

2 If someone is held accountable the family of the dead person can put in a compensation claim.

 

3 If something happens in a company/organisation the people at the top are just as guilty for letting whatever happened in the first place whether they are directly involved or not.

 

I do have an idea what's going on here as do others in the thread. It seems to be you that's wearing the blinkers.

 

nn

[Gladys]

If enough charges of corporate manslaughter are made then shareholders may start to take an interest in such things as good corporate governance as a preventive measure. Without this offence then shareholders can just continue to sit back and wait for the dividend cheque to plop on the mat.

 

How many deaths will it take before shareholders "may" take an interest? And how will they do this?

 

Much more effective, surely, to charge individual directors with manslaughter. Then you won't need "enough charges". One will do, pour encourager les autres.

Just one fine and the shareholders could ditch the board.

 

The problem with charging the individual directors personally with manslaughter is the causal link between one person's actions (or omissions) and the death that results.

[Gladys]

By the by, just who are you worried about? If it is the corporate shareholder, then they already have quite a finger in the management pie and often have one of their own appointed as a non-exec. If it is the small investor, then unless there was a catastrophic event, then they may experience a relatively small loss, but it is a big bad world out there.

 

If your concerns are more about the small non-quoted companies, then there is more scope for direct shareholder involvement.

 

It isn't perfect, but for too long limited liability has been seen as an immunity from any responsibility by investors. For ordinary commercial risk, that is fine. But when this involves causing death then everyone has to take their share of responsibility, if they have expected to take their share of the profits.

[Triple H]

Sebrof the other posters in this thread seem to be posting sensibly and not repeating themselves why do you think your right and everyone else is wrong?

 

I'm glad you dont drink in the same pub as me because you would either:

 

a send me to sleep well before the alcohol ever could.

b bore me to death.

[Sebrof]

If enough charges of corporate manslaughter are made then shareholders may start to take an interest in such things as good corporate governance as a preventive measure. Without this offence then shareholders can just continue to sit back and wait for the dividend cheque to plop on the mat.

 

How many deaths will it take before shareholders "may" take an interest? And how will they do this?

 

Much more effective, surely, to charge individual directors with manslaughter. Then you won't need "enough charges". One will do, pour encourager les autres.

Just one fine and the shareholders could ditch the board.

 

The problem with charging the individual directors personally with manslaughter is the causal link between one person's actions (or omissions) and the death that results.

 

If the board is making lots of money, a few fines won't make the shareholders ditch them.

 

If you can't find a causal link between one person's actions or omissions, then why bring the charge? And why punish the people who definitely AREN'T responsible - tax-payers or shareholders?

[Sebrof]

1. The "aggrieved party" will be DEAD! That's why the charge is manslaughter.

 

2. The criminal law is not about compensation; it's about punishment. Nobody, alive or dead, will "get what's owed".

 

3. "Everyone" shouldn't be accountable; just the guilty. Certainly not the innocent tax-payers or shareholders, who will have to pay the fine.

 

 

You don't really have any idea what's going on here, do you?

 

1 yes someone is dead, which in this day and age shouldn't happen with all the Health and Safety Regulations. BUT accidents still happen for reasons known and unknown.

 

If the reasons are known, and somebody is culpable, they should be charged. If the reasons aren't known, no charge should be raised.

 

 

 

2 If someone is held accountable the family of the dead person can put in a compensation claim.

 

A claim can be made whether or not a criminal charge is brought. The burden of proof in civil cases is less onerous than in criminal.

 

 

3 If something happens in a company/organisation the people at the top are just as guilty for letting whatever happened in the first place whether they are directly involved or not.

 

So the directors are responsible for every stupid act of their staff? I don't think so.

 

I do have an idea what's going on here as do others in the thread. It seems to be you that's wearing the blinkers.

 

One has only to read your "points" to see how much you know.

[Sebrof]

By the by, just who are you worried about? If it is the corporate shareholder, then they already have quite a finger in the management pie and often have one of their own appointed as a non-exec. If it is the small investor, then unless there was a catastrophic event, then they may experience a relatively small loss, but it is a big bad world out there.

 

If your concerns are more about the small non-quoted companies, then there is more scope for direct shareholder involvement.

 

It isn't perfect, but for too long limited liability has been seen as an immunity from any responsibility by investors. For ordinary commercial risk, that is fine. But when this involves causing death then everyone has to take their share of responsibility, if they have expected to take their share of the profits.

 

I'm concerned primarily by the fact that this law offers a way for senior management (in companies and in government bodies) to evade responibility for their actions.

 

I am also infuriated that the penalties fall on the tax-payer or shareholder. I take your point that corporate shareholders do sometimes know what is going on, but most corporate investors are pension funds, which traditionally take very little interest in how the companies they invest in are run. I believe they should take a much greater interest, but the reality is that they don't. And I don't believe that a few fines for corporate manslaughter will change that.

 

Just because a small investor might only experience a small loss is not a good reason, in my view, to land him with a penalty that should have fallen on senior management.

 

I agree with your point about owner-managed companies because then the directors and shareholders are largely the same. But they make up a small part of the total (we are talking here about government bodies as well as companies).

 

I agree in principle with your last point, but again, the reality is that most shareholders in large companies have no input into what is going on whatsoever. The directors are the ones responsible when things go wrong, and efforts to shift the blame onto the shareholders should not be encouraged.

[Sebrof]

That is why shareholders should attend AGMs and question the directors closely. Companies can already be fined for H&S breaches, so I really do not see what your issue is here.

 

The issue again is that the directors are at fault, but the shareholders pay the penalty.

 

As I said before, the shareholders can remove the directors responsible. Problem with making the directors personally liable is the extent of their personal assets to meet the fine.

 

We are talking about a fine here, not compensation to the dependents of the deceased. If a director can't pay a fine, then he will be bankrupted. That's a more effective penalty than a fine that he can afford to pay.

 

This also, perhaps, reinforces the need for shareholders to be vigilant in the calibre of the directors they appoint or re-elect to manage the business on their behalf.

 

I don't disagree, but the fact is that directors have much more power than shareholders (hence their often obscene levels of remuneration).

 

The difficulties you outline for the shareholder in overseeing the work of their elected board exist for other issues in which a shareholder may be interested, such as fraud preventation measures, finanical manipulation, ethical trading issues etc. all of which can impact on the company's ability to pay dividends and to maintain capital value. I do not see how this is different. A shareholder cannot walk in and examine the books or systems of the company, but they can remove the directors if they do not like how they perform or if their actions bring about a charge of corporate manslaughter.

 

I agree. The sad fact is that directors are largely unaccountable, not least because of interlocking directorships in other companies that may be shareholders.

But this is not an argument FOR corporate manslaughter. Quite the reverse.

[Triple H]

yawn

[Gladys]

Have given this a little more thought and there are other instances of a company itself being liable for criminal acts, pollution being the first one that springs to mind where the company lands itself with a very hefty fine if it causes pollution or environmental damage. It is not unknown and, generally, is not a bad thing IMHO.

 

It is open to the shareholders to sue the director for breach of duty if his actions cause a successful prosecution; bit of a long shot, I know, but that is one of the reasons the idea of corporate manslaughter has come about.