The CEO can’t be held personally liable for the actions of the company, for example; their underlings could have been responsible and kept the leader in the dark.
The onus should be on the company to prove their employees kept the CEO in the dark, not the other way around.
The law is a funny creature. I own a business myself (just started, actually!) and it would suck to be brought up on charges I have no idea about but I’m being held personally liable for. I’m grateful for the LLC protection in that case. Of course, I’m also not planning on committing any crimes, nor having my business commit crimes, so it’s a minor worry. Really only important in the event the law gets weaponised against the people, say for example by a foreign asset in high office… 😬
Yes, that is indeed the fact I was downplaying as “minor”. I have an even bigger target on my back, and I’m a lot less mobile with all my assets tied up like this.
The onus should be on the company to prove their employees kept the CEO in the dark, not the other way around.
The law is a funny creature. I own a business myself (just started, actually!) and it would suck to be brought up on charges I have no idea about but I’m being held personally liable for. I’m grateful for the LLC protection in that case. Of course, I’m also not planning on committing any crimes, nor having my business commit crimes, so it’s a minor worry. Really only important in the event the law gets weaponised against the people, say for example by a foreign asset in high office… 😬
So you like the benefit of being on top of the hierarchy without the responsibility.
Congrats.
deleted by creator
The problem is that once the law has been weaponized against the people, the only laws that matter are the ones they are using to harm you.
Yes, that is indeed the fact I was downplaying as “minor”. I have an even bigger target on my back, and I’m a lot less mobile with all my assets tied up like this.