Corporate Criminal Liability in the United States: Is a New Approach Warranted?

2011 ◽  
pp. 63-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ved P. Nanda
Author(s):  
Brandon Garrett

This chapter deals with corporate prosecutions around the world, focusing on the approach adopted by federal prosecutors in the United States in which settlement negotiations with companies are resolved, either through a plea agreement or agreements entered largely out of court and without judicial oversight. These agreements, called deferred and non-prosecution agreements, have added new flexibility but also some additional uncertainty to the practice of corporate prosecutions. Before discussing how this U.S. approach has altered the international corporate prosecution landscape, the article considers varying standards for corporate criminal liability. It then examines underlying corporate crimes and how standards and enforcement approaches may vary depending on the type of crime, settlement approaches toward corporate criminal cases, criticisms of corporate crime settlement approaches, and international approaches and cooperation in corporate crime cases. It also explains how corporate or entity-based criminal liability is limited and unavailable for many types of crimes in most countries.


2021 ◽  
pp. 202-219
Author(s):  
Michael Elliot ◽  
Felix Lüth

Michael Elliot and Felix Lüth examine the development of corporate criminal liability. Reaching back to its historical roots in the United States, they discuss how the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was internationalized through organizations like the OECD and FATF and in a more diluted fashion through the UN, giving corruption its current character as a public-sector problem committed by corrupt individuals rather than by institutions as a whole.


Author(s):  
M. John Plodinec

Abstract Over the last decade, communities have become increasingly aware of the risks they face. They are threatened by natural disasters, which may be exacerbated by climate change and the movement of land masses. Growing globalization has made a pandemic due to the rapid spread of highly infectious diseases ever more likely. Societal discord breeds its own threats, not the least of which is the spread of radical ideologies giving rise to terrorism. The accelerating rate of technological change has bred its own social and economic risks. This widening spectrum of risk poses a difficult question to every community – how resilient will the community be to the extreme events it faces. In this paper, we present a new approach to answering that question. It is based on the stress testing of financial institutions required by regulators in the United States and elsewhere. It generalizes stress testing by expanding the concept of “capital” beyond finance to include the other “capitals” (e.g., human, social) possessed by a community. Through use of this approach, communities can determine which investments of its capitals are most likely to improve its resilience. We provide an example of using the approach, and discuss its potential benefits.


2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 61-62
Author(s):  
John Butler

Abstract Animal disease traceability—or knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they’ve been, and when—is important to ensuring a rapid response when animal disease events take place. Although animal disease traceability does not prevent disease, an efficient and accurate traceability system reduces the number of animals and response time involved in a disease investigation; which, in turn, reduces the economic impact on owners and affected communities. The current approach to traceability in the United States is the result of significant discussion and compromise. Federal policy regarding traceability has been amended several times over the past decade based on stakeholder feedback, particularly from the cattle industry. In early 2010, USDA announced a new approach for responding to and controlling animal diseases, referred to as the ADT framework. USDA published a proposed rule, “Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate,” on August 11, 2011, and the final rule on January 9, 2013. Under the final rule, unless specifically exempted, livestock moved interstate must be officially identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) or other documentation. However, these requirements do not apply to all cattle. Beef cattle under 18 months of age, unless they are moved interstate for shows, exhibitions, rodeos, or recreational events, are exempt from the official identification requirement in this rule. We can do better. Our industry must recognize how vulnerable we really are, should we be subject to a disease such as foot and mouth. We must also understand what a competitive disadvantage the United States faces in the global marketplace without a recognized, industry-wide traceability system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document