• WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The cost of the crime also needs to include the probability of getting caught for any business to consider the crime more than an overhead. For example, if the probability of getting caught and having to backpay + fine is only 5%, the backpay + fine needs to be at least 20x greater in cost than if they’d not committed the crime (5% x 20 = 100%), because they are likely to get away with the crime 19 out of 20 times. That’s only to equalize the financial* consequences. Then you need to multiply again to add significant financial damage.

    When you realize the above, the absolute pittance of most fines is even more enraging.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      yeah. Every time I hear about the SEC or somebody levying fines… you look at what they made in profits and it’s basically just a solicitation of a bribe. for financial crimes, the start needs to be surrendering all profit associated with said financial crime. then a fine that hurts.

      for wage theft specifically, it’s usually happening to people who can’t afford to be stolen from, so I’m okay with a nuclear option.