If an organisation is in violation of the Act, any member can be charged with any of those offences committed by any other member. The idea is to use that pressure to get them to turn on the leaders. It also means they can go after anyone they think is really in charged. But it’s up to prosecutors to make sure only those most responsible are charged.

It also sounds like the leaders can set things up from the beginning to falsely point at a fall guy?

[–] RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I think the point is to go after the leaders rather than the henchmen who will just be replaced.

Usually it's not too hard to establish who the leader is, even if it's not always easy to prove. I imagine that's another reason they're allowed to go after any member.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm thinking more like having a 2IC acting as the boss, giving orders, all the henchmen think they are the leader when actually he's got the real leader whispering orders to him in secret.

Maybe I've been watching too much TV!

[–] RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've never heard of that. But if they did it right, I guess we'd never know.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago

In theory it wouldn't matter. There are only so many people you can have able to act as the leader. If you took out the 2IC and another took their place so you got them as well, etc. Then you'd likely disrupt the organisation even if you didn't get the true leader - and one of the 2ICs might sell out the boss for a deal so you'd probably find out about them eventually.