A Study on Corporate Criminal Liability: Comparative Approach

Authors

Shinde Hema Pramod Ph.D. Student, Kalinga University, Raipur (CG)
Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh Ph.D Guide, Department of Law, Kalinga University, Raipur (CG)

DOI:

Keywords:

Corporate criminal liability, Comparative approach

Abstract

Corporate criminal liability has become a pivotal subject in the realm of legal studies and governance due to the increasing complexity of corporate operations and the globalized nature of business. This article examines the evolution, theoretical underpinnings, and enforcement mechanisms of corporate criminal liability from a comparative perspective. The article elucidates the many methods of holding businesses liable for illegal actions by examining legal frameworks across nations, including civil law and common law systems. It also explores challenges related to mens rea, vicarious liability, and the role of compliance programs. Through a comparative lens, the article highlights emerging trends, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a preventive measure and the impact of international conventions. The study concludes by recommending a harmonized approach to corporate criminal liability to enhance accountability and deterrence while fostering ethical corporate behavior globally.

References

Harvey Pitt & Karl Groskaufmains, “Mischief Afoot: The Need for Incentives to Control Corporate Criminal Conduct”, B.U.L. Rev. (1991). Pp.447-448. (American Congress has promoted this trend by increasing organization fine levels and “heightening institutional liability for money laundering, fraud and insider trading by employees”). In India also companies are highly regulated; see, Money Laundering Act 2002, Competition Act 2002, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, and Industrial Dispute Act 1947.

Iridium India Telecom Limited v. Motorola Incorporated And Others, (2011) 1 SCC 74 at 97.

Regina v. Brimingham & Gloucester R.R. Co., (1842) 3 Q.B. 223 (breach of statutory duty; strict liability for omissions-nonfeasons).

H.L.Bolton (Engerring) Co,Ltd. v. T.J.Graham & Sons Ltd, (1957) 1 Q.B. 159.

Wise, E., “Criminal Liability of Corporations-US”, in La Criminlisation Du Comportament Collectif:Criminal Liablity of Corporations, Doelder. H., (Ed.), (KLuwer Law Int’l, 1996).p384.

R v. Canadian Dredge and Dock Co, (1985) 1 S.C.R. 662.

Pamela Bucy, Corporate Ethos: A Standard for Imposing Corporate Criminal Liability, 75 Minn. L. Rev (1991), p1095

See section 336 (4) of the Companies Act 2013.

Section 304A of IPC states that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting culpable homicide shall be punished.

Lord Denning in H.L.Bolton (Engineering) Co Ltd v. P J Graham& Sons Ltd. (1957) Q.B.159 at 172

Id at 399.

Id.

Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2010). Comparative and International Corporate Governance. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 485-556.

Arlen, J. (2012). Corporate Criminal Liability: Theory and Evidence. In Research Handbook on the Economics of Criminal Law (pp. 144-173). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Coffee, J. C. (1981). Corporate Crime and Punishment: A Non-Chicagoan View of the Economics of Criminal Sanctions. The American Criminal Law Review, 17, 419-480.

Gobert, J., & Punch, M. (2003). Rethinking Corporate Crime. Cambridge University Press.

OECD. (2011). OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. OECD Publishing.

Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (2011). Corporate Criminal Liability: Emergence, Convergence, and Risk. Springer.

Wells, C. (2001). Corporations and Criminal Responsibility. Oxford University Press.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2013). Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime. United Nations.

UK Ministry of Justice. (2010). The UK Bribery Act 2010: Guidance.

World Bank. (2009). Combating Corruption in International Business Transactions. The World Bank Group.