You totally can pay the government in stock, you just have to sell it or set it aside in a trust.
There's prior art, this is what the IRS makes folks who are attempting to renounce their citizenship (or give up a green card held for over 8 years) do for illiquid assets when paying the expatriation tax.
I didn't realize paying criminal penalties was supposed to be fun and easy ;) this is literally restitution for a crime.
"Uh, no Judge, I don't think I should be forced to go to prison, that's hard"
[edit] Maybe this is controversial, I dunno, I might just be old fashioned that way, but my opinion is if you find the punishment too onerous maybe don't do crime.
Punishment is meant to deter others from doing the crime (whether or not that works is another issue), so I think you're correct.
If people/organizations are committing a crime, then one reason may be that the punishment/deterrent is too lax.
(There's of course other reasons, like the law making the act a crime is bad in some way, or the individual/organization has no, or knows of no, alternative.)
This was a deferred prosecution agreement between Ticketmaster and a DOJ lawyer, not the court's decision. In the US, courts have limited power to review these agreements and generally judges just approve them every time. In other countries that allow DPE's, courts may have the power to limit their use.
The agreement might state what Ticketmaster must do or refrain from doing after the effective date to avoid being prosecuted in the future. Paying a fine might be only one part of the agreement.
One can only make assumptions about what the court might have found regarding the CFAA claim. The fact is, it did not get the opportunity.
Maybe this is an opening for a new startup: Frictionless, delightful resolution of criminal charges for the ultrawealthy. Simple automated payment of slap-on-the-wrist fines, and with the optional Uber-for-inmates premium add-on we'll find somebody to serve any jail time in your place.
Restitution is one of the comparably less important facets of our legal system (IMO), the important strength of a good legal system is deterrence. Restitution should (again IMO) in fact be severed from judgement, harmed parties should be reimbursed by the government and the government can excise penalties on the offending parties. There are a lot of cases where defendants should be hit with serious fines due to the potential and foreseeable damages of their actions but the claimants suffered comparatively little - in these cases an imbalanced judgement where the defendant is hit with a strong penalty that is only partially awarded to the claimant is fair... Then again (in the US at least) the legal system is essentially privatized with very little government intervention in cases so this would require some other changes to do properly.
The other side of the coin is quite damaging to our society as well - a defendant being judgement proof (having nothing to penalize or fine) can deprive claimants of funds needed to repair the damage of the crime - this, again, is a case where the government awarding funds and then regaining those funds from the defendant independently would be quite beneficial.
Aren't people constantly arguing that deterrence is ineffective against individuals, and that rehabilitation is best? I don't take a personal view on these things, but I would imagine that the people arguing for more severe 'punishment' of corporations and white-collar criminals are the ones arguing for lenience in violent and other individual crime.
It's possible for both of those views to coexist. I have no idea if the data fits such a model, but off the top of my head here are a few factors which might matter.
1. White-collar criminals might be more significantly deterred by the threat of any prison time, perhaps because they have more to lose or because such crimes have more premeditation.
2. Prison might work as a deterrent in general, but if 20yrs will already ruin your life then the additional threat of another 80yrs might have little to no impact.
3. Rehabilitation might have a stronger effect than deterrence, which could point to hybrid solutions leveraging both effects, supposing they mix appropriately.
At a high level, I think it would be silly to say that deterrence is entirely ineffective. I think most individuals making serious arguments against it state that it is only effective in certain circumstances, it has diminishing returns, and as a country, the US errors on the side of sentences which are much longer than necessary.
For example, If a crime is punished with incarceration, it seems unlikely that a person would make a calculated decision that 5 years in prison is an acceptable risk but 10 is not.
The idea that companies and humans are in any way equivalent is preposterous.
Companies can not be rehabilitated because they aren't moral beings. They only understand one thing: profit. Thus for companies the financial deterrent is effective and appropriate.
Exactly. If fines are less than the profit gained, the only price is the bad publicity and that often fades away after a few news cycles. This verdict sends a message that you might as well destroy a competitor in this way because the price will be insignificant even if you're caught. There might be personal risk if an individual is charged, but they can give some flunkie the job, make sure nothing is in writing, and then blame the employee or contractor if anything goes wrong.
We really need the "death penalty" for companies: dissolve the corporation after a certain number of offenses, sell the assets off to raise money to compensate the victims.
That’s not the right way to think about it. Enterprise value is some number say $19B (shares plus debt less cash; think of the equity in your house). Assume existing debt is $5B. You “give” a debt-like instrument to govt, say $10B.
Debt is ahead of stock. The stock is now “worth” a few billion. No new stock issued.
The Nobel prize in economics was won for this concept in 1990 iirc: the value of the firm is independent to how it’s financed. Just like how the value of your house has nothing to do with what interest rate you pay in your mortgage.
There's prior art, this is what the IRS makes folks who are attempting to renounce their citizenship (or give up a green card held for over 8 years) do for illiquid assets when paying the expatriation tax.