The Criminal Responsibility of Corporations

1929 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-402
Author(s):  
C. R. N. Winn

Where it has been sought to impose on a corporation liability for crimes committed by its agents in the course of its business and their employment, all the intellectual obstacles which had to be surmounted before imposing corporate liability for tort have been at least equally obstructive, besides the further difficulty that the criminal law knows no such doctrine as ‘respondeat superior.’ A man is criminally liable for his own acts and for them alone; and in order to establish his guilt it is necessary to show that two elements concur: the actus must be reus, and the mens, rea. Again there is the difficulty that a corporation is not susceptible to corporal punishment.

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Nurul Sasmita

The aims of this thesis is (1) to investigate andexplain the positions of corporations in conducting banking criminalacts, and (2) also to identify and explain the criminal responsibility ofbank as the perpetrator in banking criminal acts. This research isnormative, conceptual approach and the approach of legislationregarding responsibility principles of the corporation for banking criminalacts.Corporations have chances in committing a crime, especially bankingcriminal acts just by making a corporation recognized as a subject ofexistence apart from human beings, so that in practice there is a criminal offense committed by the corporation. The corporation takespart in the occurrence of a crime. In practice, the determination of acriminal offenseconducted by the corporation is known through two things: first, the works of the committee: they should be constructed as theyuse the principles of the liability of corporation’s criminal actions. Principally, stakeholders and officials or employees of a corporationhave the responsibility for its owncorporate actions; second, errors in the corporation,as long as it is in the science of criminal law, the overview of criminals is still oftenassociated with physical actions performed by the manufacturers(fysieke dader) but this can be overcome by the study of  "functionalactors" (functioneledader). We can prove that the action of committeeor employees of the corporation in the society act traffic concerned,the acts of the corporationerrors in the forms (dolus or culpa) must be regarded ascorporate faults.Towards the corporations that make banking criminal acts we canhave their responsibility with the principles of strict liability. Onthe principle of strict liability, it is known that the responsibility ison them even if they do not have the required mens rea. The substanceof this principle is that the perpetrator has been punished if theperpetrator may have provable conduct prohibited by the criminalprovision (actus reus) withoutsee the inner attitude. In this conception, the corporation is consideredhaving responsibility forphysical acts performed by management. A corporation convicted in principles isintended to develop a sense of justice in the corporation who commitsbanking criminal acts as stated in Article 46 paragraph (2), sothat if a corporation committed criminal acts, we can also have theresponsibility of the corporation. Keywords:Banking Criminal Acts, Corporation, ResponsibilityMenurut peraturan perundang-udangan, korporasi sebagai subyek hukum dapat dikenakan pidana sebagaimana manusia melakuka tindak pidana. Pada praktiknya, penentuan tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh korporasi diketahui melalui dua hal, yaitu pertama tentang perbuatan pengurus yang harus dikonstruksikan sebagai perbuatan korporasimaka digunakanlah asas pertanggungjawaban pidana. Pada asas tersebut stakeholder maupun pengurus atau pegawai suatu korporasi, bertanggungjawab terhadap perbuatan korporasi itu sendiri. dan kedua tentang kesalahan pada korporasi, memang selama ini dalam ilmu hukum pidana gambaran tentang pelaku tindak pidana masih sering dikaitkan dengan perbuatan yang secara fisik dilakukan oleh pembuat (fysieke dader) namun hal ini dapat diatasi dengan ajaran “pelaku fungsional” (functionele dader). Kita dapat membuktikan bahwa perbuatan pengurus atau pegawai korporasi itu dalam lalu lintas bermasyarakat berlaku sebagai perbuatan korporasi yang bersangkutan maka kesalahan dalam bentuk (dolus atau culpa) mereka harus dianggap sebagai kesalahan korporasi. Terhadap korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana perbankan dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana dengan menggunakan asas strict liability.Pada asas strict liability diketahui bahwa pembebanan tanggung jawab pidana kepada pelakunya sekalipun pelakunya tidak memiliki mens rea yang dipersyaratkan. Adapun substansi dari asas ini adalah pelaku sudah dapat dijatuhi pidana apabila pelaku telah dapat dibuktikan melakukan perbuatan yang dilarang oleh ketentuan pidana (actus reus) tanpa melihat sikap batinnya. Dalam konsepsi ini, korporasi dianggap bertanggung jawab atas perbuatan yang secara fisik dilakukan oleh pengurus (direksi dan komisaris). Dipidananya korporasi pada asas ini dimaksudkan dapat menimbulkan rasa keadilan pada korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana perbankan, sehingga apabila korporasi melakukan tindak pidana maka korporasi juga dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban.Kata kunci: Korporasi, Pertanggungjawaban, Tindak Pidana Perbankan


Actus Reus is known as the external element of the objective component of Criminal Law. Mens Rea, the guilty intention, determines the criminal responsibility. Mens Rea and Actus Reus both are the components of a criminal activity that determines the liability of the accused person. An action carried out in furtherance of criminal activity doesn’t become an attempted crime unless it is confirmed by the illegality for which it was conducted. An attempted crime is an action that reveals the illegal intention on its face. The aspects of a crime such as the Mens Rea, Actus Reus, intentional crime, unintentional act caused as a result of carelessness, motivates to indulge in violating the provisions of law. The four theories of law such as the rule of proximity, the test of unequivocally, the indispensable element approach and the test of social danger are the elements of a crime.


2020 ◽  
pp. 139-183
Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains/critiques the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.


Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 126
Author(s):  
Dwi Wahyono

Corporation is the subject of a criminal act. In Indonesia, the statutory regulations that initiated the placement of corporations as subjects of criminal acts and which can be directly accounted for are Act No. 7 the Emergency of 1955 concerning Investigation, Prosecution and Economic Criminal Justice, as subjects of criminal law corporations do not have an inner attitude. Meanwhile, to be criminally accountable, a men's rea/schuld is required. Crimes committed by corporations are very detrimental to society and the state. Meanwhile, the conventional accountability system which is individual, direct, and based on schuld, is difficult to apply to corporations. The purpose of writing is to analyze the corporate liability system to impose crimes against corporations, and obstacles to imposing crimes against corporations. The method used is the statute approach (legal approach) and the case approach (case approach), the analysis method uses qualitative analysis with interpretation, and the data collection method uses library research. It can be concluded that corporations can be held accountable by using a system of absolute and substitute liability, and the obstacle is the application of a conventional criminal liability system and the difficulty of proving corporate wrongdoing. It is suggested that there is a common perception between law enforcers about the criminality of corporations.


2001 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Tadros

There are two different ways in which the insanity defence could he constructed. These relate to different ways in which the insanity defence might question the responsibility of the accused. Either the defence might show that the act in question was not performed in the appropriate way (that the accused lacks attribution-responsibility) or it might show that the agent was not an appropriate subject for criminal responsibility (that he or she lacks capacity-responsibility). Sometimes it is thought that these possibilities collapse into each other: it is only those that cannot perform their acts in the appropriate way that lack the capacity to be criminally responsible. This essay shows three things: first, that Scots criminal law, at least since the nineteenth century, is in a state of confusion between a capacity-responsibility conception of the defence and an attribution-responsibility conception. Second, that capacity-responsibility does not collapse into attribution-responsibility: there are some agents who are capable of forming mens rea but who ought not to be made criminally responsible due to their mental disorder. Third, that a sophisticated account of the capacity-responsibility conception can provide a version of the insanity defence that is both theoretically more elegant and practically more advantageous than the attribution-responsibility conception that has found favour in England and in some Scots decisions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Khairat Oluwakemi Akanbi

In recent times, corporate homicide has become an increasingly global phenomenon. These global incidences make it imperative to have a legal framework for holding corporations liable for deaths either of employees or members of the public that occur as a result of their activities. The challenge however is in applying the traditional criminal law elements of actus reas and mens rea to a corporation, since the criminal law had developed with the natural person in mind. The aim of this paper is to examine the legal framework for corporate liability for homicide sharing the experience in Nigeria and the UK. The paper discusses the application of criminal law elements of actus reas and mens rea to a corporate body in order to justify corporate liability for homicide. It also examines the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 of the UK which is the first legislation on corporate homicide together with theposition in Nigeria. The paper finds that the legal framework in Nigeria is inadequate to secure corporate liability for homicide. The UK provisions can thus serve as a useful model in this regard.


Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Criminal Law Directions is written with an emphasis on explaining the key topics of Criminal Law courses with clarity. The book starts by offering an introduction to criminal law. It also looks at the issues of actus reus and mens rea. It goes on to consider topics such as strict, vicarious, and corporate liability; murder and voluntary manslaughter; involuntary manslaughter; non-fatal offences against the person; and sexual offences. It moves on to look at theft and other offences against property, including robbery, burglary, blackmail, handling, and criminal damage. Fraud and drugs offences are then examined and general and specific defences are explored. Finally the book considers inchoate offences and accessorial liability.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Henny Yunita Fitriani

<p>Abstract<br />Criminal act formulated in Environmental Protection Law Number 32 Year 2009 still contains an  element of error (mens rea) as the main element that must be proven. In the case of environmental criminal acts committed by corporations, it is difficult to prove the causal relationship of the element of error with the criminal law act (actus reus). The strict liability doctrine can be applied as a basis for corporate criminal responsibility that commits environmental crimes by revising criminal provisions in environmental law (UUPPLH) by removing mens rea element, because the current UUPPLH only provides a basis for implementing strict liability in settling disputes through courts with a civil lawsuit mechanism. The expansion of the principle of strict liability in criminal law will more effectively impose corporate criminal responsibility, including in this paper the case of environmental pollution by PT. Rayon Utama Makmur (RUM) Sukoharjo.<br /><br /></p><p>Abstrak<br />Perumusan tindak pidana dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan  dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup masih mengandung unsur kesalahan (mens rea) sebagai unsur pokok yang harus dibuktikan. Dalam kasus tindak pidana lingkungan yang dilakukan korporasi sulit untuk membuktikan hubungan kausal unsur kesalahan tersebut dengan perbuatan hukum pidana (actus reus). Doktrin strict liability dapat diterapkan sebagai dasar pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana lingkungan hidup dengan cara merevisi ketentuan pidana dalam hukum lingkungan (UUPPLH) dengan menghapus unsur kesalahan, karena UUPPLH saat ini hanya memberikan dasar penerapan strict liability dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui pengadilan dengan mekanisme gugatan perdata. Perluasan asas strict liability dalam ranah pidana akan membebankan pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi secara lebih efektif, termasuk dalam makalah ini kasus pencemaran lingkungan oleh PT. Rayon Utama Makmur (RUM) Sukoharjo. <br /><br /></p>


Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Criminal Law Directions is written with an emphasis on explaining the key topics of Criminal Law courses with clarity. The book starts by offering an introduction to criminal law. It also looks at the issues of actus reus and mens rea. It goes on to consider topics such as strict, vicarious, and corporate liability; murder and voluntary manslaughter; involuntary manslaughter; non-fatal offences against the person; and sexual offences. It moves on to look at theft and other offences against property, including robbery, burglary, blackmail, handling, and criminal damage. Fraud and drugs offences are then examined and general and specific defences are explored. Finally the book considers inchoate offences and accessorial liability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document