Only if there was some sort of cohort of people who would be able to judge actions to see if they are liable.

Perhaps we aren't scaling the judiciary system propley & allowed it to become overly complex so that only a certain subsect of the population can navigate it efficiently and an even smaller portion of that can litigate for others.

For some ideas, see http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Legal%20Systems/LegalSystemsCo...

Perhaps. Maybe if the same cohort of people who practice said laws weren’t incentivized to challenge existing laws and to make more laws there would be more resources to help judge.

> Because it renders them liable.

Yep.

This is how you tell the difference between financial crime that the authorities don't care about and financial crime they do.

Look for personal liability.

This would be a more compelling explanation if there seemed to be particularly high levels of holding people accountable.

It seems to me we build big opaque structures that prevent accountability. Your national internet provider rips you off? You'll probably be able to reverse the transaction, but good luck getting any information at all about what happened.

Or because a false positive doesn't render them liable, or if it does, the punishment isn't harsh enough.