The crime wasn’t necessarily committed by actual persons, its entirely possible that no single individual broke the law in any more than a very minor way. 

The crime was committed by the organization. 

Limited liability means that the owners are not responsible for crimes committed by their organizers. That means that at the end of the chain of accountability, there stands, no one.

What I mean is that company management and employees should be held criminally liable far more often than the US seems to do. A “Corporate Person” didn’t commit these crimes – actual people did. Those people need to be booked, by piercing the corporate veil and addressing the actual individuals involved.

The abrupt death of HSBC would hurt far more than HSBC’s own shareholders and employees alone. That’s my concern with simply passing a “death sentence”.

As I said, the first question to ask is why they became so big…

I think limited liability only serves a useful purpose in terms of shareholders in a large(r) firm, who may not have direct involvement with the running of the firm. We can only put the HSBC management behind bars, not all of its shareholders.

The management and board that perpetuated these criminal acts should be made liable to the full extent, and the general body of the company – its shareholders – should be made to elect a new board. Also, the company itself should be penalised by means of large fines that should serve as a signal to the general body to not elect criminal managements anymore.

I’d be happier if the rank-and-file employees got a share in the decision making somehow, too.

Your comment brings to mind the old Russian joke in which a genie offers to grant a poor peasant his heart’s desire.

“My neighbor has this beautiful cow that produces bucketfuls of milk,” says the lowly farmer. “He sold the milk and bought a bull. Now he has a whole herd of cows . …..”

“I get it!” the genie interrupts, “your wish is to have a herd like your neighbor’s.”

“No,” the baffled peasant replies. “I want you to kill my neighbor’s cows.”

ANd it’s not at all about getting banks to enforce laws.  It’s about holding banks accountable for laws that banks break.  I don’t know how you could miss the point so spectacularly on that score.

Please try to get some perspective on this issue.

And again.  Also, Wells Fargo and Bank of America.  JP Morgan too but I’m not googling any more of this, too depressing.

If corporations are people, they certainly have all the benefits of personhood without any of the drawbacks. In “The Corporation”, the filmakers compare them to sociopaths, which is spot on. They have no conscience, and why should they? It’s all about profit, and if the punishment costs (let’s just say a shitload) less than the crime pays out, then it’s perfectly reasonable.

a less cynical view would also note that it allows those without massive wealth to take risks in business that would otherwise threaten them with loss of everything they own.

both perspectives are probably true.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021791

By de-criminalizing, you take out the hyper-profits you can make from running a coke operation, and the risk/reward assessment gets skewed in favour of shutting up shop and shipping out to the Caymans.  Maybe then the kidz who get recruited into the operations have to find something else to do, and the little kidz who look up to those kidz no longer have the wrong type of role models.

Over time, the entire structure weakens and, although you may not have less crime, you have less organisation behind it.

I think humans in general have an issue with moral cleanliness.  The key is to provide ways of living that diminish the impact of moral uncleanliness (whatever that might be defined as).  Like green energy.

Your oil / coke distinction doesn’t quite work in my frame – the point I’m making is that any activity in the illicit economy, and especially ‘illegal’ drugs, is financing an enormous, hungry system that destroys youngsters’ lives before they have a chance to do something else.  They’re just way too attracted to the fast money, although they won’t really make any.  I know too many middle class wankers who help finance human trafficking, prostitution, vehicle theft, burglary, oppression, whatever you like, simply by snorting coke at the weekends.

It’s not a moral thing – it’s factual.  I don’t care about the ethics or the morals of the snorters; I care about the naive people young and old who get sucked into the system.

Oil – yes, it pollutes, and to be fair, I use as little as I can.  It’s warming the earth, yes.  But, although the corporations obtaining and delivering it are corrupt and greedy, that very system does not permanently morally influence young minds.  And I’m sure we’re all working hard to figure out how to get greener every day.