> There's a difference, lab tech would impact individuals, but he wouldn't make false claims to the general public as the company's main selling point.
But when it's the CEO who does it, doesn't she do both? I mean, those individuals who get the fake test results are also members of the general public.
Unfortunately, they’ll get away with it as long as the company value goes up. As long as investors make money, who told whom what is irrelevant.
The Sacklers kind of got away with it. They're not going to prison for dealing drugs.
The law really is weighted in favor of investors.
The last I've heard of it, it seems it's not over yet for the Sacklers.
https://www.reuters.com/business/judge-tosses-deal-shielding...
Ultimately, does this mean that the next fraudster will get away with it as long as they keep their investors in the loop about the lies?