Corporate Criminal Liability Whether Organizations Can Genuinely Possess Guilty Mind
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ijlp.535Keywords:
Corporate Criminal Liability, Corporate Men’s Rea, Identification Doctrine, Vicarious Liability, Organizational Fault, Corporate Culture, Criminal ResponsibilityAbstract
Purpose of criminal liability. The research explores the theoretical and legal challenges of applying the concept of men’s rea to artificial legal entities. A qualitative doctrinal research method was adopted, using laws, judicial decisions, policy documents, and scholarly literature related to corporate criminal responsibility. The findings reveal that corporations cannot possess a guilty mind in the same manner as natural persons because they lack consciousness and independent intention. However, legal systems have developed mechanisms such as the identification doctrine, vicarious liability, and organizational fault models to attribute criminal responsibility to corporations. The study further finds that corporate culture and internal governance structures play an important role in determining organizational fault. Differences among jurisdictions demonstrate the absence of a universally accepted approach to corporate men’s rea. The research concludes that corporate criminal liability remains necessary to ensure accountability, deterrence, and the protection of public interests in modern commercial environments.
References
Allah Rakha, N. (2024). O‘zbekiston Respublikasining reklama to‘g‘risidagi qonunchiligini qo‘llash amaliyoti Practices of the advertisement legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Yurisprudensiya, 4(1), 73–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51788/tsul.jurisprudence.4.1./JGLN3011
AllahRakha, N. (2024). Digitalisation of Law Symposium 2024. Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy, 2(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.269
Arlen, J. (1994). The potentially perverse effects of corporate criminal liability. Journal of Legal Studies, 23(2), 833–867. https://doi.org/10.1086/467939 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/467947
Babšek, N., Kovačič, A., & Šelih, A. (2025). Corporate criminal liability in the age of automation: Emerging frameworks for algorithmic accountability. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 33(1), 45–72.
Brooks, R. (2008). Corporate culture and criminal responsibility: The dangers of relying on organisational values. Journal of Criminal Law, 72(4), 329–348.
Bucy, P. H. (1991). Corporate ethos: A standard for imposing corporate criminal liability. Minnesota Law Review, 75(4), 1095–1184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.2948
Bucy, P. H. (2012). Corporate criminal liability: When does it make sense? American Criminal Law Review, 46(4), 1437–1462.
Burgis, T. (2017). The looting machine: Warlords, oligarchs, corporations, smugglers, and the theft of Africa's wealth. PublicAffairs.
Coffee, J. C., Jr. (1981). "No soul to damn: No body to kick": An unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Review, 79(3), 386–459. https://doi.org/10.2307/1288201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1288201
Coffee, J. C., Jr. (2014). Entrepreneurial litigation: Its rise, fall, and future. Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674287075
Coffee, J. C., Jr., Gruner, R., & Stone, C. D. (1991). Standards for organizational probation: A proposal to the United States Sentencing Commission. Whittier Law Review, 10(1), 77–102.
Colvin, C., Haigh, Y., & McGrath, M. (2015). Corporate culture and criminal liability: Bridging the gap between legal theory and organisational practice. Australian Journal of Corporate Law, 30(2), 112–134.
Diskant, G. (2008). Comparative corporate criminal liability: Exploring the limits of the vicarious liability approach. Yale Law Journal, 117(5), 1052–1084.
Farrington, D. P. (2016). Corporate criminal liability in comparative perspective: Convergence and divergence. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 16(1), 85–114.
Fisse, B. (1990). Corporate criminal responsibility. Criminal Law Journal, 14(3), 166–189.
Fisse, B., & Braithwaite, J. (1993). Corporations, crime and accountability. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659133
Ford, J. (2019). Vicarious liability and the future of corporate accountability: A regulatory perspective. Law and Financial Markets Review, 13(4), 198–215.
Gobert, J. (2000). The identification doctrine: Is it past its sell-by date? Criminal Law Review, 2000, 612–625.
Gobert, J. (2005). Corporate criminality: Four models of fault. Legal Studies, 25(1), 1–31.
Gobert, J. (2013). Controlling corporate misconduct: The case for a new approach to corporate criminal liability. In J. Gobert & A. Pascal (Eds.), European developments in corporate criminal liability (pp. 3–28). Routledge.
Griner, D. (2017). Corporate criminal liability and the challenge of organisational intent: A doctrinal analysis. Criminal Law Quarterly, 64(2), 201–228.
Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710390536 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710390536
Khanna, V. S. (1996). Corporate criminal liability: What purpose does it serve? Harvard Law Review, 109(7), 1477–1534. https://doi.org/10.2307/1342176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342023
Khanna, V. S. (1997). Is the notion of corporate fault a faulty notion? The case against corporate criminal liability. Boston University Law Review, 79(2), 355–419.
Krawiec, K. D. (2003). Cosmetic compliance and the failure of negotiated governance. Washington University Law Quarterly, 81(2), 487–544. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.448221
Lederman, E. (2000). Models for imposing corporate criminal liability: From adaptation and imitation toward aggregation and the search for self-identity. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4(1), 641–708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2000.4.1.641
Parker, C. (1996). Bringing the "compliance" orientation to shareholder remedies. Sydney Law Review, 18(2), 144–165.
Parker, C. (2002). The open corporation: Effective self-regulation and democracy. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550034
Payne, J. (2015). Corporate liability: Examining the effectiveness of current doctrines in addressing modern corporate wrongdoing. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 35(3), 591–615.
Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (Eds.). (2011). Corporate criminal liability: Emergence, convergence, and risk. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3
Simpson, S. S. (2002). Corporate crime, law, and social control. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606281
Sugarman, D. (2026). Algorithmic accountability and the limits of corporate criminal liability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 34(1), 1–29.
Sutherland, E. H. (2024). White collar crime: The uncut version (Reprint ed.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1983)
Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass [1972] AC 153 (House of Lords).
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165990 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/41165990
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate ethics programs as control systems: Influences of executive commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.2307/256873 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/256873
Wells, C. (2011). Corporations and criminal responsibility (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Wouters, J., & Chané, A. (2012). Multinational corporations in international law. KU Leuven Working Paper No. 129. Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Moeen Asghar Wattoo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
