Great article.

The internet really is a great resource. Thank you for this information Mr. Sachs.

Perhaps I could reference you to Matthew Verse 23 of the New testament - 'a warning against hypocrisy' These people may try to sound just to themselves on the outside, however when you look at the inside, the figures show a different story. They are lucky to have people like you and others on this site to warn them as the really need to be saved.

Good stuff. You overlooked the supreme court citizens united decision as yet another factor leading to corporate greasing in the US. Probably the worst legal decision of all time and we've yet to see the long run effects yet.

Referring to the last part in your article, does a company have the right to keep its finances secret? If it's not a binary answer, what rights to financial privacy does a government have?

Excellent article, but I think you missed another important component:

Legalized corruption.

That is, things that should be illegal but through legislative capture have been enshrined as "legal" in our laws. Good examples are the usurious interest rates that credit cards charge, the gaping holes for off-shore tax havens, the completely inequal justice system (you can steal $100 from a store and spend decades in prison, or steal millions from investors and spend years or less), and even rediculous handouts, like the $4 billion to oil. These all are simply corruption in another guise.

a corporate crime wave ..... so why isn't anything being done about it ?   where's the good guys ?   where's the justice ?   when will the "crimesters/banksters" go to prison ?   where are the clawbacks ?   

The moral crisis.......will not be solved by more rules.

The "civilized" world is in deep denial because the stakes are so high.

" Greed, ladies and gentlemen, is good " (Trump for president)

Milton Friedman 's  free market...

Noreena Hertz : The silent takeover & I O U

I am afraid we are way beyond the point of no return.

Alex, The Netherlands

Impunity is just a trade with some costs and consequences, while its long term impact continues to grow in character and intensity; it is fast proliferating into the costs that the poor pay through their lives for even the essential services needed for their livelihood.

Procyon Mukherjee

Thanks for shedding some light in the dark corners Professor Sachs. I agree with the thoughts. Unfortunately I don't think the media nor a new kind of politician is enough of answer. I love watching movies about the snuffing out of corporate corruption -- and there are plenty -- but it never seems to change anything, does it? And even if one were to run on "free media" and get elected we know that getting elected is only half the battle. That politician would still be swimming upstream -- probably very much alone. 

You would think that precisely because one is not trying to be a CEO or a politician that would give them the ability to rally against corruption unabated -- but I can't think of any tools for such a person to use. I mean, protests? Boycotts? Even great articles like this never seem to have a lasting impact. We could post billboards of corrupt CEOs (like deadbeat dads!) -- try to shame them into changing their ways. But the problem is the problems are complex and the paper trails that lead to criminality are often more grey area than black and white. Until we can think of retaliation that actually works I fear we will continue to morph our way back into a world of Lords and serfs. It's too bad. 

Prof. Sachs is mistaken in thinking that the two main reasons for corporate crime are the international nature of big firms and the political power they wield. Neither plays much of a role. The reality is that corporate boards select top managers, leave them unaccountable, and embed them in a system of deniability that present criminal law cannot penetrate, even with the best of efforts. Crime as Prof. Sachs uses the term in this article is an epithet, not a legal concept. To convict those who run large corporations of crime, we must either define crimes differently or somehow penetrate the wall of deniability that corporate lawyers constantly erect.

A great and important article.  

Yes, it is difficult to hold corporate executives accountable.  They are protected by a phalanx of lawyers who make sure they can maintain plausable deniability of the crimes their companycommits. But if corporations are treated as "citizens" having the right to free speach, they also need to be subject to the same severity of criminal sanctions that citizens get when they break the law.  

You cannot put a company that commits crimes in jail, but you can put them out of buisiness, force them to change management, divest themselves of assets and reorganize.  This sounds draconian and IT SHOULD.  The penalties individuals suffer when the are convicted of crimes are meant to provide take them out of circulation, prevent them from committing new crimes and deter others.

We need penalties on corporations that provide effective deterents to bad behavior.  Corporations have demanded the rights of citizens, they need to step up to the responsibilites.

I don't think that treating corporations as citizens improves the law's enforceability. Nor do i think it wise to so acquiesce in the Supreme Court's Citizens United point of view, a view that promises to destroy our form of government if it persists. The malefactors are not the corporations as such, anyway; they are the executive officers and boards of directors. Consider the practice of banks like Citi and JP Morgan, as reported last year in the WSJ, whereby they doctor their balance sheets on the last day of each quarter to make it look as though they complied with capital requirements, and then un-doctor the sheets two days later. Then the CEOs give speeches about how well their banks comply with the regulations. The ones ordering up these practices are not the accountants and clerks, but under current legal rules of evidence it is highly unlikely that the communications leading to this fraud can be found or proven to have existed. So it does no good to claim that the corporation is responsible, or to increase corporate penalties, or even to charge the CEOs with fraud. The current rules of evidence must change, or the line of attack must shift to the boards of directors, who are ultimately responsible. 

Great article, hopefully more will have the courage to speak like this...

I may contribute to the discussion with excerpts from an international symposium held four years ago, about which you can read here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24681

From the contribution of a retired Libyan gentleman who has held high positions in the past, but now prefers to remain anonymous:

"The dominant system is oriented towards an international business law considered as the supreme reference overhanging all national law and of course international public and private law. The WTO has defined in this context an arsenal of principles and procedures all the way to and including a juridical system based on the negation of the elementary principles of separation of powers that characterize democracy.

"This is totally unacceptable. We need exactly the opposite. We need a business law that is respectful of the rights of nations, people and labor, and respectful of the environment, rights of communities, women, while ensuring the conditions for further progress of democratization of societies.

"We have to advocate an International Law of the Peoples, which should combine:

"-- The respect of national sovereignty, allowing people to choose their future according to their wishes.

"-- The respect of Human Rights, not only political rights but also social rights and the right to development and peace.

"No solution is reached through abolishing one of the two terms of the equation. We can neither abolish sovereignty nor can we abolish human rights.

"The principle of respect for the sovereignty of nations must be the cornerstone of international law. The fact that this principle is violated today with so much brutality by the democracies themselves constitutes an aggravating, rather than mitigating circumstance. [...] The solemn adoption of the principle of national sovereignty in 1945 was logically accompanied by the prohibition of recourse to war. [...] With the militarization of the globalization process, which is closely associated with the neo-liberal option and with its predilection for the supremacy of international business law, it has become more imperative than ever that priority be given to this reflection on people's rights."

I would agree on “Global Economy’s Corporate Crime Wave”, but also in a next, different meaning. It seems that all of those insider tradings, securities frauds and Ponzi schemes, are just one side of a bad coin. Looking at the biggest corporate players we can find lots of tricky stories in Eastern Europe, Russia, Africa or South America during last 50 years. Big corporations were making huge profits while entering markets like Poland or Russia. Local companies were struggling, people were loosing jobs against big corporation profits.  

It has been possible because of massive “privatization” processes managed by non-experienced local governments supported by think tanks and advisors under strong influence of global corporations. Instead of controlled melting down of state companies to balance local private employers and healthy corporate ownership for a secure time period, public companies were privatized in very short term period without any feasibility study or influence measurements on commonalty.

As far as I am aware Mr. Sachs has been one of these advisors. This article seems to me as taking the eyes of highest corporate business saying “yes, there is a crime in economy, everyone can see that, but be focused on small fishes like concrete CEO´s” . Do not analyze the international corporate game and global influence on single, national markets, one criminal side of a bad coin is just enough.

Because of crisis that we can't say no to bribes and say "under the table" set-up. However, if you are a person of belief that there is still hope in this problem, then it should start in you.

Laser Lipo

Excellent article.

Here is what seems like a light shed on the secretive Swiss banks: "Startling revelations from a Swiss banking insider" http://noviden.info/article_239.html

Apart from the too dubious claim of "trillions" (perhaps the interviewee did not express himself well), it might all be true. 

Dear Prof. Sachs,

It was with great pleasure that I read your article “The Global Economy’s Corporate Crime Wave”.  I thought that you honed in on the biggest problem facing our entire world.  It is a pity that so few are aware or ready to express these truths.  I don’t believe the founding fathers of American democracy would have been able to envision our current state of affairs. 

Globalization is creating financial and economic monsters out of corporations which are managed by unknown, unquantifiable men and women whose primary job is to increase shareholder profit, nothing else.  These men and women are typically the most ambitious and political people the human race has to offer and arrive at their position of power, often times, through back-room dealings and power grabbing.  They have no drive to make this world a better place and no code of conduct for higher expression of the corporate identity except profit, through whatever means possible.  The examples are many but to name a few - the case of Enron’s demise, Halliburton’s repeated offenses as they hired mercenaries for the country’s wars, and AIG’s desperate need for a bail-out only to pay bonuses to its top executives only six-months after being given life again. 

Part of the solution, in addition to your suggestion for a more open political discourse devoid of dirty money, should come from a review of the shareholder agreement and the creation of self-limiting clauses on the reach of the Board of Directors of these huge multi-national corporations.  A code of conduct such as the Hippocratic Oath should be introduced by active shareholders and should incorporate premises such as limits on top executive pay as a percentage of their most junior and entry-level workers’ salaries, the use of annual shareholder meetings for reporting profits as well as charitable and gifting projects with full transparency of political contributions, PACs and a prohibition of the use of corporate funds to influence governments or people in general. 

Shareholder advocacy may sound “Pollyannaish” but if these corporations are allowed to grow unfettered nothing less than their true owners exercising their combined powers will impose basic moral values in the pursuit of profit.  Here too we can use the internet and its new promise of free information to communicate and manage the process.  If the Supreme Court of the United States is right and corporations have the same freedom of expression as a person then they must act in a civil and moral manner and their true owners should exert their controls against corruption and malfeasance.

So informative things are provided here,I really happy to read this post,I was just imagine about it and you provided me the correct information I really bookmark it,for further reading,So thanks for sharing the information.

Machine single du moulin