I agree with you, I think your point is in a similar vein to my comment about the extraterritorial nature of the law. It's great whilst we have people in charge who we might agree with, but where are the protections if you do not agree or if the circumstances change. I can envisage the legislation, being interpreted in the strictest fashion, being used against organisations for political or other motives. Do we have adequate protections against this in the legislation?

Almost all criminal law I know of has a clause "...up to x years/month". We are pretty fine with this since decades. Why should this be different?

That is reflective of the nature of the crime, and history of the criminality of the accused, not their intrinsic characteristics, such as being small businesses or large businesses.

Depending on the nature of the violation, it may also reflect the scope of the violation, such as fraud. This is a scenario where, again, the size of the business, or the risk of the business going under, is not taken into account.

If we really want two separate punishments for the same crime- one for small businesses and one for large businesses, because we don't intend on putting anyone out of business- then that should be a codified part of the punishment.