13. The Criminal Liability of Corporations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Crime ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
A Company ◽  
Theoretical Issues

This chapter begins with a discussion of the law on corporate criminality, covering the difficulty in convicting companies of crimes; corporate killing; and vicarious liability. The second part of the chapter focuses on theoretical issues in corporate liability, covering the reality of corporate crime; the clamour for corporate liability; whether a company should be guilty of a crime; and what form corporate crime should take.

13. The Criminal Liability of Corporations

Criminal Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 765-781
Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Crime ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
A Company ◽  
Theoretical Issues

This chapter begins with a discussion of the law on corporate criminality, covering the difficulty in convicting companies of crimes; corporate killing; and vicarious liability. The second part of the chapter focuses on theoretical issues in corporate liability, covering the reality of corporate crime; the clamour for corporate liability; whether a company should be guilty of a crime; and what form corporate crime should take.

4. Strict, vicarious, and corporate liability

2020 ◽  
pp. 84-98
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
A Company

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. This chapter discusses the three special forms of criminal liability: strict liability (including absolute liability), vicarious liability, and corporate liability. A strict liability offence is an offence which does not require proof of at least one mens rea element. An absolute liability offence does not require proof of any mens rea elements. Vicarious liability imposes liability on the defendant for the acts or omissions of another person. Corporate liability relates to the liability of a company for a criminal offence.

4. Strict, vicarious, and corporate liability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Monaghan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
A Company

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. This chapter discusses the three special forms of criminal liability: strict liability (including absolute liability), vicarious liability, and corporate liability. A strict liability offence is an offence which does not require proof of at least one mens rea element. An absolute liability offence does not require proof of any mens rea elements. Vicarious liability imposes liability on the defendant for the acts or omissions of another person. Corporate liability relates to the liability of a company for a criminal offence.

scholarly journals British law on corporate bribery

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Mukwiri
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Company Law ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
Regulatory Strategy ◽  
Regulatory Approach ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
A Company

Purpose – This paper aims to assess the effectiveness of the Bribery Act 2010 in curbing corporate bribery. Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes a doctrinal focus in assessing UK bribery law using both primary and secondary sources. Findings – This paper finds that the effectiveness of the Bribery Act 2010 in curbing bribery lies in its approach of changing the basis for corporate criminal liability from focusing on the guilt of personnel within the company to focusing on the quality of the system governing the activities of the company. Companies have to address the risks of bribery or risk facing liability for failure to prevent bribery. With its regulatory approach to corporate liability, coupled with its extraterritorial reach, the Bribery Act is likely to change business cultures that facilitate bribery, thereby proving an effective law to corporate bribes. Originality/value – This paper highlights the deficiency of earlier laws in tackling corporate bribery, examines the crime of bribery from a company law perspective and argues that the regulatory strategy in the Bribery Act is likely to be an effective tool against bribery.

8. Corporate and vicarious liability

2021 ◽  
pp. 259-291
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Identity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter focuses on the potential criminal liability of organizations, particularly corporations. Corporations have a separate legal identity and are treated in law as having a legal personality distinct from the people who make up the corporation. Therefore, in theory at least, criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation separately from any liability imposed on the individual members. There are currently six ways in which a corporation or its directors may be prosecuted: personal liability of corporate directors, etc; strict liability offences; statutory offences imposing duties on corporations; vicarious liability; the identification doctrine; and statutory liability of corporate officers. The chapter also discusses the limits of corporate liability, the distinction between vicarious liability and personal duty, the application of vicarious liability, the delegation principle and the ‘attributed act’ principle. The chapter examines the failure to prevent offences found in the Bribery Act 2010 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

scholarly journals MEMAHAMI KONSEP DAN SUBJEK PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA DALAM PASAL 39A UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2007 TENTANG PERUBAHAN KETIGA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 6 TAHUN 1983 TENTANG KUP

Scientax ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-188
Author(s):  
Bina Yumanto
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Board Of Directors ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Corporate Liability

In various cases of tax criminal acts, the board of directors is often subject to criminal liability on the grounds of being a signatory to the Tax Return (and/or Tax Invoice) and as a corporate organ that is deemed responsible for all company policies, activities, and operations. In addition, some cases of Tax Criminal Investigation impose criminal responsibility on the board of directors based on evidence of signature in the Tax Return and consideration of the principle of vicarious liability, which is the expansion or representation of liability for compensation under Private Law. This study aims to analyze the criminal liability doctrine adopted by Article 39A of Law Number 28 of 2007 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP) and whether corporations can be held criminally liable in the offense of that Article. The theory and concepts used are criminal liability and analysis of the elements of Article 39A of the UU KUP, the main doctrines of criminal liability, the definition of legal entities, corporate taxpayers, and corporate liability. The results of the study found that corporate taxpayers as corporations are the subject of criminal liability in Article 39A, in addition to individuals, and Article 39A adheres to the principle of no crime without guilt.

scholarly journals Criminal Liability in Environmental Crimes Committed by Corporations after the Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 at Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fitriani Rahmadia ◽  
Hari Sutra Disemadi ◽  
Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Corporate Crime ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Consequences ◽  
Environmental Crimes ◽  
Legal Entities

Corporations are organized groups of people and / or properties, both in the form of legal entities or non-legal entities. In relation to the corporation as a legal subject in environmental crime, it is formulated in Article 1 number 32 of the Law Number 31 Year 2009 about Environmental Protection and Management, each person is an individual or business entity, both legal entities and non-legal entities. The context of corporate crime in the environment is still not solid enough to ensure corporations in criminal sanctions because there is no legal basis regarding the procedures for handling environmental crimes committed by corporations. The Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 concerning Procedures for Handling Corporate Crime provides a basis for enforcement of criminal law, then the purpose of writing this article is to find out the form of criminal liability for corporations for environmental crimes and legal consequences after the Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2013.The type of research used is legal research which is included in the normative legal research typology where this study focuses on positive legal norms in the form of legislation. The theory used by the author in analyzing is using the theory of criminal liability which is based on the principle of legality. The conclusions include: criminal sanctions that can be applied to corporations based on Article 4 of Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 are in the form of criminal fines, additional crimes, and disciplinary actions except prisons and confinement. Last, the legal consequences of the application Article 25 Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 with the principal criminal is a criminal fine and then the criminal added according to the law governing environmental criminal acts is the Law Number 32 Year 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management.

8. Corporate and vicarious liability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The People ◽  
Legal Identity ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Personal Liability

This chapter focuses on the potential criminal liability of organizations, particularly corporations. Corporations have a separate legal identity, and are treated in law as having a legal personality distinct from the people who make up the corporation. Therefore, in theory at least, criminal liability may be imposed on the corporation separately from any liability imposed on the individual members. There are currently six ways in which a corporation or its directors may be prosecuted: personal liability of corporate directors, etc.; strict liability offences; statutory offences imposing duties on corporations; vicarious liability; the identification doctrine; and statutory liability of corporate officers. The chapter also discusses the limits of corporate liability, the distinction between vicarious liability and personal duty, the application of vicarious liability, the delegation principle, and the ‘attributed act’ principle. The chapter examines the failure to prevent offences found in the Bribery Act 2010 and the Criminal Finances Act 2017.

7. Parties to crime

Criminal Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Ian Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
Corporate Liability

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter discusses the meaning of accomplices, vicarious liability, and corporate liability. All the parties to a crime are accomplices. The person who perpetrates the crime is referred to as the principal. Others, not being principals, who participate in the commission of an offence are referred to as accessories or secondary parties and will be liable to conviction if it is proved that they aided, abetted, counselled, or procured the commission of the crime by the principal. Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability arising from the master–servant relationship, without reference to any fault of the employer. A corporation is a legal person and therefore may be criminally liable even though it has no physical existence and cannot act or think except through its directors or servants.

Concept of Restitution Application as a Form of Corporate Criminal Liability in Law Enforcement towards Human Trafficking Criminal Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 156
Author(s):  
H Radea Respati PARAMUDHITA ◽  
H. Sigid SUSENO ◽  
Lies SULISTIANI
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Human Trafficking ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Corporate Liability

This research aims to analyze: (1) the corporate liability as a law subject in terms of human trafficking criminal act; and (2) the concept of restitution application as a form of corporate criminal liability in the case of law enforcement towards human trafficking criminal act. This research is categorized as normative legal research through the statue and conceptual approaches. The result of the research found that: (1) in terms of criminal law, both seen from the Law of Human Trafficking or theories of corporate liability, corporate is one of law subject in terms of human trafficking criminal act whose liability can be asked regarding human trafficking criminal act. The corporate liability which conducts human trafficking criminal act can be determined through the fulfillment of general criminal liability terms (subjective terms) including the presence of liability, the presence of guilt both intentionally and negligence, and the absence of reasons to omit the criminal law. The form of liability of corporate criminal in terms of human trafficking criminal act can be decided precisely using vicarious liability; and (2) restitution application concept, as a form of corporate criminal liability in law enforcement towards the human trafficking criminal act so that justice principle, legal certainty and benefit for the victim of human trafficking. Therefore, the concept offered is first, fulfillment of material rights. Second, the availability of legal protection accompanied with its implementing which is a very urgent matter. Third, the availability of structure (in the form of institution/entity) and infrastructure is an essential thing in process managing, deciding and executing the human trafficking criminal act.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document