Corporate Crime: When Fines Fail, Maybe There’s a Case to Be Made for Jail Time

Given that civil penalties, fines and regulation clearly don’t deter corporate executives from wrongdoing, perhaps the time has come to consider throwing them in jail?

I admit, it’s a provocative question, but it crossed my mind in light of recent headlines about the derisory fines levied against Glovo and Delivery Hero for flagrantly anti-competitive practices, and is perhaps the only way to deal with the repeated, brazen recklessness that characterizes many companies and executives, with the results that we’re all too aware of.

Suggesting prison time for corporate decisions that while morally reprehensible but don’t always cross clear legal lines will inevitably draw fire. That’s precisely why this debate is both healthy and necessary — especially when we include counterarguments. What this conversation demands is nuance, not ideological warfare.

In that spirit, we must acknowledge the full complexity and risks of criminally prosecuting corporate executives for unethical conduct while emphasizing the need for balanced accountability that doesn’t paralyze legitimate business activity.

The most common objection centers on setting potentially dangerous precedents: criminalizing corporate management itself. Not every decision with negative consequences constitutes a crime, and allowing judges to evaluate the ethics of business strategy could enable authoritarian overreach — creating a climate where executives constantly fear legal retaliation. Critics worry about a “chilling effect” that would discourage risk-taking and stifle innovation.

Another frequent concern involves the challenge of individual accountability. Large corporations function as intricate systems where decisions flow through committees, legal advisors, technical teams and middle management. When this diffuse machinery produces harm, who bears criminal liability? How do we prevent scapegoating or stop the truly responsible parties from hiding behind organizational complexity?

Many argue that criminal law is simply the wrong instrument. Its purpose is punishing clear intent — demonstrable criminal will and provable harm. Corporate abuse, they contend, should remain within regulatory, administrative, or civil frameworks: fines, compensation, reputational damage, or professional sanctions — but not imprisonment.

There’s also the specter of judicial politicization. If we start jailing executives, prosecutors or governments might exploit these cases for populist theater or ideological revenge. The justice system has been weaponized before to appease public anger or deflect attention from other failures.

It could be argued that if startup founders know that a controversial decision could mean prison time, many will simply avoid launching businesses altogether — or steer clear of markets with unpredictable regulation. In cultures where business failure already carries stigma, adding criminal risk could prove fatal to innovation.

Others point out that legal mechanisms for addressing corporate abuse already exist: substantial fines, class-action lawsuits, consumer protection laws, labor regulations, and sector-specific oversight. If these tools aren’t working, it’s not because they’re inadequate but because of insufficient political will or under-resourced enforcement agencies. The solution, they argue, isn’t shifting from civil to criminal law but making the existing system function.

Finally, some contend the real issue is scale, not legal principle. Fines fail to deter misconduct not because the concept is flawed, but because the amounts are laughably small compared to ill-gotten profits. When a company makes $100 million exploiting legal loopholes and pays a $2 million fine, the message is unmistakable: do it again. This doesn’t necessarily argue for prison sentences — perhaps fines should be proportional, escalating, or coupled with penalties like executive disqualification.

These objections all merit serious consideration. But we must also confront the flip side: if we continue tolerating executives who behave like sociopaths shielded by impunity, who systematically exploit legal gray areas, who abuse vulnerable populations or damage millions of teenagers’ mental health while maximizing their bonuses — and face no personal consequences — that message is equally clear: crime committed from corner offices comes cheap. This should deeply concern us all.

I’m not arguing that prison solves every problem. I’m arguing we stop treating it as taboo. We should at least consider that in the most egregious cases, criminal sanctions may be justified. We must understand that respect for law — and the ethical principles underlying it — cannot depend on the size of an offender’s bank account. If it does, we’re not protecting the rule of law — we’re protecting privilege.

(En español, aquí)

—

This post was previously published on MEDIUM.COM.

—

If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

—

Photo credit: iStock.com

The post Corporate Crime: When Fines Fail, Maybe There’s a Case to Be Made for Jail Time appeared first on The Good Men Project.

View the full article