Theories of Corporate Criminal Liability (or Corporations Don't Commit Crimes, People Commit Crimes) (From Corporations as Criminals, 1984, Ellen Hochstedler, ed. - See NCJ-94652)

• NCJ Number: 94654
• Author(s): N Parisi
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 27 pages
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter compares theories of corporate liability, since consistency is necessary to justify the concept of corporate criminal liability.

Abstract

Courts discarded the ultra vires concept early in this century. This theory immunized the corporation from liability for both torts and crimes of their employees. Another theory that became less important was that of vicarious liability. Today there are two main theories of corporate liability: identification and imputation. The narrower theory is identification, which assumes that liability is direct. The representatives or top officers of the corporation are the liable parties in this theory, along with those to whom they delegate certain activities. The imputation theory hs its basis in the theory of vicarious liability. The corporation, under this theory, is liable for the intent and acts of its employees. The employee must be acting within the scope or course of employment for the benefit of the corporation. As it is rare for a board to pass a resolution to commit a crime, this theory is somewhat more applicable than the identification theory. Reactions of the corporation following criminal conduct fall under the category of ratification and tolerance. This theory accounts for company postures that may encourage employee criminal conduct. The problem with this theory is it is difficult to prove. Fourteen notes, 30 cases and 32 references are included.