"Several consultations and meetings later, however, the company’s board faced a dilemma. We had to make a decision. The costs of pursuing the case would simply exceed any compensation from winning it. So, should we then pursue the case?"
Maybe I don't know how your countries legal system works, but surely the cost is borne by the state? I assume then you mean the cost of the time you would need to spend to support law enforcement? But the thing is, now you:
a) can't name this fellow,
b) if someone does a background check of him and his father in the future, they will not find this
c) his father, a layer (?!), stands a lose a LOT if this really is true, and would probably be smart enough to settle this ASAP,
d) if a customer had not paid, you'd probably consider writing off that as a bad debt, but still possibly engage a collection agency to attempt to recover the debt - you would only get a fraction of it, but you'd get some. You might have found a willing law firm to pursue the case, in return for a % of the settlement/award.
e) assuming a successful prosecution, most countries would block this young man from being a director of a company for a LONG time - that should be enough reason to follow through alone
I understand it's expensive but I, for one, feel that you have a moral obligation to take the evidence to the correct authorities, and let them make the decision on whether they have a case and to proceed or not.
The site is down, so I'm working from inference - but robbery is a violent crime. Theft is a non-violent crime. Both are matters for the police, not civil litigation.
Since it's up to the board to decide to pursue the case, it sounds like it's neither - probably some sort of breach of contract we're looking at, which is bad enough, but not robbery.
The question is whether it would be pursued under criminal law or civil. If under criminal law, you would expect the state to bring a prosecution if there was sufficient evidence and be responsible for all costs.
However, in the UK for example, cases of breach of fiduciary duty are not often of interest to the police unless there is a public interest angle.
Consequently, I presume that the OP is talking about a civil case where costs would be incurred to bring the case.
Although there is likely to be an ability to claim some element of costs from the losing side, there is still obviously the risk that the case may not be successful regardless of how solid the case is due to the inherently risky nature of litigation.
There is a moral obligation. That's kind of the dilemma I'm trying to put forward. We prefer, as you say, to let the authorities decide on what's the best way to handle it.
Yes I'm not sure about this. It might be a local issue. In many countries though if you win you will have your legal costs covered along with the original funds returned. Otherwise, many would not pursue injustices. Of course, if you don't feel like you have a great chance of succeeding then the risks do become "Well, it'll cost us $100,000 to try and get the $50,000 back and we're not even sure we'll win" Then it might make sense to drop it but that is because your case isn't really rock solid.
Maybe I don't know how your countries legal system works, but surely the cost is borne by the state? I assume then you mean the cost of the time you would need to spend to support law enforcement? But the thing is, now you:
a) can't name this fellow,
b) if someone does a background check of him and his father in the future, they will not find this
c) his father, a layer (?!), stands a lose a LOT if this really is true, and would probably be smart enough to settle this ASAP,
d) if a customer had not paid, you'd probably consider writing off that as a bad debt, but still possibly engage a collection agency to attempt to recover the debt - you would only get a fraction of it, but you'd get some. You might have found a willing law firm to pursue the case, in return for a % of the settlement/award.
e) assuming a successful prosecution, most countries would block this young man from being a director of a company for a LONG time - that should be enough reason to follow through alone
I understand it's expensive but I, for one, feel that you have a moral obligation to take the evidence to the correct authorities, and let them make the decision on whether they have a case and to proceed or not.