Corporate accountability imbalance is evident in Bates v Post Office, just as much as with the bank. Funny how, when things go well for a corporation, the living men and women get the credit. But when things don’t go well, the corporation takes the blame.

Yet, the legal fiction corporation is clearly not to blame. Because it has no thinking capacity. Which is why the corporation hires living men and women to act on behalf of the corporation.

So why aren’t the living men and women, who are receiving financial renumeration for showing up each day (‘cos clearly they’re not doing any work) totally responsible for this messy situation?

There’s an accountability imbalance.

Meanwhile the bank’s actors fail to respond to numerous communications, and their lawyers file a claim in court, despite no apparent merit or lack of evidence.

Bank Accountability: Who’s Really Responsible?

If the bank’s officers are being financially compensated, why aren’t they directly accountable for their actions? In theory, corporate personhood is meant to provide a clear structure for conducting business. But it also creates a legal separation between the people behind the corporation and the corporation itself.

When things go well: The living individuals—the executives, board members, and other key figures—enjoy the profits and recognition for the corporation’s success. Their bonuses, salaries, stock options, and even reputations are tied to the corporation’s success.

However, when things go badly, the corporation, as a legal fiction, bears the liabilities, debts, and reputational damage. Yet those same individuals making the decisions leading the corporation into the poo-pile, escape direct consequences. (Unless they’re personally involved in illegal activity or fraud).

This seems like an inherent disconnect between actual responsibility and legal responsibility. The real human actors behind the bank’s decisions, policies, and actions are able to shift the blame to the corporation. Yet the bank itself is a legal fiction that can’t do anything… It’s merely a vessel for their decisions.

In reality, it’s those same living men and women that have the capacity to act, decide, and govern. They should be held accountable for both the successes and the failures. So how do they escape?

Bank’s Failure to Respond – Personal Accountability

The bank’s failure to respond to registered mail and the subsequent legal action indicates that the human actors behind the corporation are either:

  • Negligent (not fulfilling their responsibilities to communicate or resolve the issue).
  • Intentionally ignoring any/all attempts to resolve the matter. perhaps hoping we’ll either give up or that the legal system will work in their favor.
  • Engaged in bad faith, attempting to push forward an unproven claim without a solid legal or factual basis.
  • Relying on the corporation’s legal shield to protect them from personal consequences.

The challenge lays in exposing this disconnect.

And demand accountability from the living people making the decisions, collecting the profits, and enjoying the benefits of the corporation’s operations. In other words:

  • The bank as a corporation is pursuing the legal claim.
  • But the individuals behind the scenes, such as the CEO, legal counsel, managers, and officers, are the ones actually driving this action forward.
  • If these individuals aren’t held personally accountable for their failure to respond to our legitimate claims, the system is being abused.

Corporate Personhood: A Convenient Shield?

The legal fiction of corporate personhood grants the corporation certain rights and responsibilities, enabling this kind of behavior. The corporation is able to act (like a person would) without the direct personal consequences falling on the people who make the decisions.

It’s an incentive structure leading to irresponsible decision-making, because the risks are not fully borne by the individuals in charge.

The corporate veil shouldn’t be a shield for individuals who are acting negligently or in bad faith.

Hold Individuals Accountable:

Individuals (the living men and women) are responsible for this messy situation, not the corporation itself. These individuals are paid to make decisions. They’re the ones who have the capacity to communicate, resolve disputes, and act in good faith.

If the bank’s taking legal action, the bank’s actors are required to produce evidence to support their claim. The failure to communicate and failure to respond to repeated letters constitutes a breach of duty.

Piercing the Veil of Corporate Accountability Imbalance

This legal doctrine allows individuals to be held personally liable for the actions of the corporation, particularly if they have acted fraudulently or negligently.

  • Whether it’s the bank’s failure to respond to communications or the pursuit of an unproven claim constitutes bad faith or misconduct.
  • These facts could potentially pierce the corporate veil and make the individuals personally liable for their actions.

The bank’s actions (or inactions) have real-world consequences for their customers.

And when things go well for a corporation, the living men and women who act for and on behalf of the corporation certainly get the credit.

When things go wrong, the corporation (the legal fiction) takes the blame. Meanwhile the living individuals behind it are often able to evade personal accountability.

The bank isn’t to blame, how can it be?

No, the blame lies with the individuals making the decisions for the bank. And they’re shirking responsibility by hiding behind the corporate structure.

Holding those individuals accountable and demanding transparency is a critical step toward correcting this imbalance and making the system more just.

Accountability And Impunity

There’s a huge frustration with the system of corporate impunity, especially in light of cases like Bates v. Post Office.

There we see how executives, despite being at the helm of a major corporation, manage to avoid responsibility by adopting a stance of ignorance or willful blindness.

These individuals being paid handsomely for their positions, having the most control, are shielded from any real accountability.

This isn’t just an ethical problem, it’s a structural issue. Those in power escape any meaningful consequences, despite the immense harm caused by their decisions (or lack thereof).

Evidence of the bank’s negligence, such as emails and letters, show a lack of response or obstruction in resolving this case.

The fact that they’re ignoring so many requests for proof of their claim and now pursuing it in court, highlights their misconduct. And the need for personal accountability.

When bank executives or officers deliberately avoid communication or fail in their duties (despite being paid handsomely), this can be framed as bad faith or negligence.

You can argue that these individuals are willfully blind to the harm they’re causing, or deliberately avoiding responsibility.

Legal Tactics For Corporate Accountability

When corporate executives avoid responsibility and continue to profit, the goal is to expose their personal involvement in the wrongful behavior and push for individual accountability. Here’s some pointers:

a) Bad Faith Allegations
Bank executives are willfully blind to the issues at hand. Such as ignoring important communications or failing to properly review the case before pursuing legal action. One key is establishing whether their actions are grossly negligent or fraudulent.

If bank executives are benefiting from bonuses or financial incentives, you can argue that they’ve incentives to ignore disputes, make bad decisions, or act with disregard for your rights.

b) Corporate Accountability Imbalance and Personal Liability

Focusing on those who directly influence the actions taken by the bank. Especially the CEO, legal officers, or senior managers making decisions behind the scenes. If there’s evidence that these individuals are directly responsible for ignoring or mishandling the matter, consider the Corporate accountability imbalance… You can argue for piercing the corporate veil to hold them personally liable.

If you can show that these executives are acting in bad faith or causing harm by failing to act, you can ask the court for damages or punitive damages. Regardless of the corporate accountability imbalance, these could personally affect the individuals responsible.

Automation and digital processes can sometimes dehumanize the handling of important correspondence. It’s almost impossible to know whether a living individual has actually seen and processed the documents you’ve mailed.

Automated systems could be scanning and filing letters, emails, or other communications. These systems might not flag or prioritize important documents requiring a response. So there’s a chance that no one is reading or processing the documents.

Legal Action to Force Accountability

Numerous attempts to communicate with the bank have received no response. Now it seems the banks lawyers are filing a legal claim.

Filing a motion for disclosure or discovery would compel the bank to produce records of their communications, or show that our letters were received and processed properly.

In the discovery process, request the bank provides logs or records showing who opened and reviewed the documents they’ve received. This can help establish whether or not the documents were properly reviewed or if they were ignored.

Legal Claim for Bad Faith or Negligence

If the bank’s failure to respond is causing harm (for example, if you’re being unjustly sued based on an unsubstantiated claim), you could argue that the failure to properly handle communications constitutes bad faith or negligence.

Corporate accountability imbalance can be a strong argument. You can demonstrate that the bank hasn’t made a good faith effort to resolve the matter, despite repeated communication on your part.

You could motion the court to pierce the corporate veil and hold the individuals responsible for the negligence…

Especially if you can show the lack of response is part of a pattern of ignoring responsibilities or avoiding accountability.

Or file a motion to prove that the bank’s lawyers haven’t used fictitious language in filing their fraudulent claim.