Corporate Criminal Liability in India

In 21st Century, crimes committed by corporate bodies are creating more serious challenge for criminal justice system. Some vested interests which are controlling affairs of corporate bodies misuse the corporate body for commission of criminal acts to maximise profit. Corporate body is conferred with legal personality for regulation of its functions but it does not have physical body and mind of its own, thereby, problem arises for holding corporate body as criminal, and further, in imposition of criminal liability. Corporate criminal activities badly affect environment, health, safety and infra-structure development. Corporate entities are involved in corruption, forgery, money laundering, foreign exchange violations, money laundering, tax evasions, benami property transactions and other economic offences. Proper formulation of criminal justice actions and effective enforcement of corporate criminal liabilities are modern criminal justice requirements. Corporate bodies are business entities; economic wellbeing of society, prosperity of citizenry and development of nation depend on freedom of trade, amicable business environment and least regulation of corporate entities. Hereby, in determination and imposition of corporate criminal liability for betterment of society, it is necessary to make balance between to take stern actions to tackle corporate crimes and to take care to not hamper legitimate activities of corporate bodies. Law relating to corporate criminal liability in India will be analysed in this paper. Keywords: Criminal Justice System, Corporate crime, Corporate criminal liability, Natural person, Social wellbeing, Strict liability

Criminal Liability Committed by Corporations for Environmental Damage as a Result of Forest and Land Fires (Case Study Case Number 59/PID). B/LH/2020/PN. RGT)

The deforestation process that occurs in Riau is very worrying, forest and land fires are proof that environmental management and utilization are no longer reliable. These forest and land fires are proven to involve companies involved in the cultivation and utilization of forest products. For this reason, the corporation must be criminally responsible because UUPPLH No. 32 of 2009 has recognized the corporation as the subject of criminal law. Efforts to hold companies accountable aren't easy — many companies actually stop investigations because they don't have enough evidence. Therefore, the author wants to know the criteria of corporations that are said to commit forest and land fire crimes, as well as how the form of criminal accountability. This research method uses normative legal methods and sculptural approaches that are approaches through legislation. The results of the investigation, the criteria of the corporation to commit the crime of forest and land fires if it meets the elements in the preparation of articles of forest and land fires, namely land clearing by burning and exceeding environmental quality standards. The violation is committed by a person for work or other relationship reasons within the scope of the business entity. If the crime is committed by, for, or on behalf of a business entity, it shall be considered a corporate act. The form of corporate criminal liability in the criminal act of forest and land fires is preliminary, because the error lies with the corporate administrator (director) who is the mastermind or owner of control of the company's operational activities (Director Mind). Because in PP No. 4 of 2001 Article 13 that the director as the person in charge of all commercial activities whose business can cause damage and environmental pollution must comply with government regulation No. forest and land fires.

The Supreme Court Jurisprudence on Corporate Criminal Liability 2010–2020

Despite over a century of development, the Thai law on corporate criminal liability remains doctrinally unfinished. This Commentary looks at the past decade of relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence. It traces lasting trends and highlights questions that still require resolution.

Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi Terhadap Pencemaran Lingkungan Hidup Ditinjau dari Undang-undang Cipta Kerja

Human activities that are less controlled, make a clean and healthy living environment less and less, this is because the earth is currently getting older and the activities of humans themselves are not properly preserving the environment. Humans have a role and responsibility to empower the environment to maintain the ecosystem. However, the current reality is that most environmental crimes often involve corporations. This study aims to examine the regulation of criminal acts by corporations in the perspective of the Copyright Act and to reveal criminal sanctions against corporations that commit acts of environmental pollution in terms of the Copyright Act. This research uses a normative research type, with a Legislative approach. As for what is used as primary data, namely Law Number 32 of 2009, Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation is the legal basis for knowing criminal arrangements and criminal sanctions against corporate criminal liability for environmental pollution in terms of the work copyright law. Data were collected using library research techniques. After the research data has been collected, it is processed by elaboration, namely combining the sources of the primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials with deductive and inductive logic. The results of this study indicate that corporate crime is essentially a functional act and is in the form of an inclusion offense. The criminal sanction of imprisonment is 1/3 to the management of the corporation.

Corporate Actions

This chapter evaluates the rules that determine the attribution of the actions of human actors to companies. These contain elements that demonstrate that company law is designed for the operation of organizations and that therefore a real entity theory is best suited to explain the law as it stands, and also to formulate normative recommendations. Indeed, conceiving companies as serving real entities helps to explain the approach taken by the law in relation to corporate criminal liability. Companies are actors whose acts are sometimes determined by their shareholders and directors. But they do not fully control what companies do. Companies act autonomously through habits and procedures that have formed between the individuals who act for and contribute to them. These procedures cause companies to become independent of their individual actors and can lead to blameworthy conduct.

Human Rights Litigation against Multinational Companies in France

Sandra Cossart and Lucie Chatelain review strategic human rights and environmental cases against multinationals in France. By reference to actual cases they outline the legal bases, jurisdiction, and procedure for corporate criminal liability for offences overseas. They discuss cases arising from consumer complaints for misrepresentations by multinationals about human rights standards in supply chains. Regarding tort law, they explain the corporate veil and other hurdles and the potential for claims against parent companies and attempts made to utilise French labour law by employees of foreign subsidiaries. They explain the ground-breaking Law on the Duty of Vigilance of parent and instructing companies, the potential for civil liability in the event of failure to comply with the requirements for a vigilance plan, and judicial enforcement mechanisms. They outline procedural barriers to claims against multinationals, including with regard to access to evidence, collective actions, legal standing of NGOs, and costs rules.

Foreign Direct Liability of Multinational Corporations in the Dutch Legal Order

Channa Samkalden reviews the position in the Netherlands regarding the imposition of liability on multinationals for human rights abuses overseas. She explains the potential basis for, the process, and the advantages of seeking corporate criminal liability under the provisions of the Criminal Code. Regarding civil liability, she outlines the rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and the interplay with the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, including forum necessitates. She outlines jurisdictional decisions in Milieudefensie v. Shell and Kiobel v. Shell and the principle for establishing foreign direct civil liability on a parent company based on the breach of a tort law duty of care and alternative grounds and the potential relevance of soft law and the European Convention on Human Rights. She outlines the rules on admissibility of claims by representative organisations, collective actions, limitation, assessment of damages, discovery, witness protection, and costs and funding.

Corporate Criminal Liability Not Fulfill the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

This research aimed to review a corporate action which contains the elements of a criminal act that do not fulfill the rights of Persons with Disabilities and liability as stated in Constitutions Number 8 of 2016 concerning Persons with Disabilities. This research using normative law method, the approach that used is statute and conceptual approach. This research shows that the elements of corporate actions that have implications for criminal acts in this law are actions of corporate management acting on behalf of the corporation or the policies of the corporation that have ignored or prohibited persons with disabilities from obtaining their rights as stated in the law. The corporation accountability in Constitution Number 8 of 2016 concerning disability person there are 2 kinds, administrative sanctions and second, cumulative criminal sanctions, namely in the form of imprisonment and fines. Whereas, the concept of criminal liability against corporations used in this law is the corporation as a responsible policy maker and administrator, in the sense that the criminal act according to this law is violated by the corporation, the corporate management will be responsible according to the cumulative criminal sanctions contained in the law.

Corporate Liability for Economic Crimes

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.

PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA KORPORASI (PT) ATAS TINDAK PIDANA PERUSAKAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP

The occurrence of environmental crimes in the form of environmental pollution and/or destruction, mostly carried out in the context of running an economic business, and is also the attitude of the authorities and entrepreneurs who do not carry out or neglect their obligations in environmental management. Environmental pollution and/or destruction continues to increase in line with the increase in industrial activities or the like, of course the environment needs legal protection. Article 116 of the Environmental Protection and Management Law (UUPPLH), makes the concept of corporate criminal responsibility and corporate management (directors, managerswho are responsible for managing the company's environment, can even be asked to shareholders and commissioners) together, in the event that the activities and/or business of the corporation cause environmental pollution and/or destruction. On the other hand, the accountability of the directors/management of the corporation is also needed because there is a possibility that the sanctions imposed on the corporation will not affect the lives of the leaders/management of the corporation.The method used in this thesis research is normative juridical research using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. This study uses library research techniques, which are then analyzed qualitatively. Based on the results of the study, that corporate criminal liability in Article 116 paragraph (1) UUPPLH is based on the identification of Theory and Vicarious Liability. Meanwhile, the director's criminal responsibility as an individual for criminal acts of environmental destruction occurs as long as the director has the authority to prevent violations or to improve the situation. Meanwhile, the criminal responsibility of the director representing the PT organ for environmental crimes can be identified based on the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine (RCO) and Strict Liability, because his position in the company has an obligation to take action to ensure that the violation will not occur as stipulated in Article 116 and 117 UUPPLH.