Comment by Ray20

>those that gave the orders

That's part of the crime. Of course, the one who gave the order must bear responsibility. It's just that if the subordinate also bears full responsibility, there is a high probability that there will be no order to commit a crime, because everyone will expect that there will be no criminal ready to commit the crime.

>what does everybody ( in the commpany ) think would have happened if he did find out?

Why is this important? A crime has been committed. The people who committed it must be held accountable. The lack of responsibility of the direct criminals allows for the existence of a system where the commission of crimes is not punished, employees cover up each other's crimes, and those who refuse to commit them are fired. Not the other way around.

>It's easy to frame laws to make it the leaders responsibility

Where are the examples?

>it's their job to know

Yes, and this is exactly the substitution that occurs: instead of responsibility for a real crime, there is responsibility for a poorly performed job. A great system for a leader to use to get his subordinates to commit crimes for his own benefit.

>if people did it because of fear of losing their jobs

Then they should bear more serious responsibility than those who committed the same crime for personal profit.

Because this is already organized crime, more dangerous for society and more protected from law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the direct perpetrator of the crime, the one who gave the order to commit the crime and those who tried to cover up the criminals - should be considered an organized criminal group, with all the consequences.

And Zuc, if he did not order the crimes to be committed - it would be great for him to get a brand new mega-yacht. So that the next time he starts winking strangely or giving out KPIs that are easiest to achieve by committing crimes - people would think with their own heads, and not start engaging in organized criminal activities.