Worst case founders can just run away with the money.
They can also kick the VC rep from the board since they own majority share.
Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
The basic defense against "just run away with the money" is the laws that prevent a shareholder paying out "common company" money to themselves personally at the expense of minority shareholders. If the company under their control violates the rights of the minority shareholder(s), they are entitled to compensation from the majority shareholder(s) and/or the company, and they can and will sue them for that. Furthermore, any accounting irregularities, misrepresentations, faked reports, etc done during that process may easily push it from a mere civil claim into criminal charges.
"They can also kick the VC rep from the board since they own majority share." will be prevented by an investor rights agreement and modifications to the company charter and bylaws that mandate (for example) that a particular board seat will be controlled by that VC, and that this board seat will have a veto right over certain types of decisions - so the majority can't do whatever they want. The majority shareholders will also generally have a binding contractual agreement that they must vote in a particular way in certain aspects.
A key part of most investment is due diligence review of the company current situation - the founders would be expected to agree to an invasive, thorough audit of their operations by the investors. This will include a review of any legal clauses, liabilities, etc. In addition, often the founders (personally) will be expected to sign so-called representations that affirm these details, and that they have disclosed all material aspects, and that they'll be personally liable for misrepresentations and omissions. In case of outright fraud (taking the money and running away) this will also be evidence in a criminal case that some misrepresentation was not just an accidental omission but an intentional act.
It's not that uncommon to have money disbursed in tranches conditional upon meeting certain provisions, and for any money that goes directly to founders it's not uncommon to see clawback provisions that state that the consequences of any misrepresentations will be taken out of these funds, possibly with large part of that money held in escrow for some time to cover that.