Again, it's pretty rough on the victims to tell them we won't bother trying to get the money they're owed. Sometimes you have no choice; I would be shocked if the healthcare company mentioned in the source link were still operating, since it doesn't sound like it was actually doing much beyond the Medicare fraud. But when you do have a choice, what does anyone have to gain from blowing it up?
I don't see this as exclusive with monetary fines. If you're saying that the remaining assets of the company are so much lower than the amount obtained fraudulently by the time the prosecution happens, I'd honestly consider it somewhat absurd to consider that a reason to let the company keep operating. By that logic, if I rob millions of dollars from bank and then spend it all by the time I'm caught, I shouldn't have to go to jail for decades so I can make enough money to pay them back.
It’s not a question of black and white thinking. If a business took $20,000 from me, and prosecutors told me that they could get the full $20,000 back but instead they’re going to set some of it on fire and only get $10,000, I’d have some serious questions.
Maybe answerable ones, if the deterrence theory works out! But I don’t understand who it is that’s supposed to be getting punished or deterred. The owners are losing the business anyway, what do they care if you put the assets to productive use or not?
> I don’t understand who it is that’s supposed to be getting punished or deterred
The investors who will continue to make money from the business that committed fraud and lost virtually no profit from it under the current model. As long as fraud continues not to affect the bottom line, businesses aren't going to stop committing it.
> Punitive punishment serves as a deterrent to other businesses.
You mean the owners and management and employees? Because a "business" in the way it's being suggested isn't a human with emotions or feelings, you can't "deter" a legal construct...
What about the investors into businesses that make money through fraud and other illegal acts? My theory is that if the return on investment for a business making profits through fraud is literally zero, investors would figure out a way to start avoiding investing in fraudulent businesses pretty fast.
Surely there’s some wiggle room in between “I just do not like businesses” and “businesses that are convicted of causing some amount of damage to society should not exist”
At some point, recovery needs to take a back seat to deterrence.
I'm indifferent to the idea of businesses in general. I genuinely dislike businesses that make profits from breaking laws and then don't have to suffer the consequences that individuals would suffer from the same actions.
Again, it's pretty rough on the victims to tell them we won't bother trying to get the money they're owed. Sometimes you have no choice; I would be shocked if the healthcare company mentioned in the source link were still operating, since it doesn't sound like it was actually doing much beyond the Medicare fraud. But when you do have a choice, what does anyone have to gain from blowing it up?
I don't see this as exclusive with monetary fines. If you're saying that the remaining assets of the company are so much lower than the amount obtained fraudulently by the time the prosecution happens, I'd honestly consider it somewhat absurd to consider that a reason to let the company keep operating. By that logic, if I rob millions of dollars from bank and then spend it all by the time I'm caught, I shouldn't have to go to jail for decades so I can make enough money to pay them back.
Punitive punishment serves as a deterrent to other businesses.
I really dislike the black or white thinking of, "if we're not maximizing recovery then victims will get nothing."
It’s not a question of black and white thinking. If a business took $20,000 from me, and prosecutors told me that they could get the full $20,000 back but instead they’re going to set some of it on fire and only get $10,000, I’d have some serious questions.
Maybe answerable ones, if the deterrence theory works out! But I don’t understand who it is that’s supposed to be getting punished or deterred. The owners are losing the business anyway, what do they care if you put the assets to productive use or not?
> I don’t understand who it is that’s supposed to be getting punished or deterred
The investors who will continue to make money from the business that committed fraud and lost virtually no profit from it under the current model. As long as fraud continues not to affect the bottom line, businesses aren't going to stop committing it.
> Punitive punishment serves as a deterrent to other businesses.
You mean the owners and management and employees? Because a "business" in the way it's being suggested isn't a human with emotions or feelings, you can't "deter" a legal construct...
What about the investors into businesses that make money through fraud and other illegal acts? My theory is that if the return on investment for a business making profits through fraud is literally zero, investors would figure out a way to start avoiding investing in fraudulent businesses pretty fast.
If you can't deter a business, what function do fines and monetary legal judgements on businesses have?
Do you genuinely just not like businesses?
Surely there’s some wiggle room in between “I just do not like businesses” and “businesses that are convicted of causing some amount of damage to society should not exist”
At some point, recovery needs to take a back seat to deterrence.
I'm indifferent to the idea of businesses in general. I genuinely dislike businesses that make profits from breaking laws and then don't have to suffer the consequences that individuals would suffer from the same actions.
Well that would be terrible! People all over would be furious!
(As, perhaps, they should be.)