Models Impose Corporate Criminal Liability â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Models Impose Corporate Criminal Liability? Answer: Introducation Under the common law, the conduct of particular person who is related with the company, can be attributed to the company if it can be said that the person is the directing mind and will of company. This needs to be established on the basis of the facts of the case. Therefore, merely on the basis of the fact that a particular person is a director of the company, it cannot be inferred that such person is the directing mind and will of the company. The Australian law is mainly based on the principle of "directing mind and will" as in this case, natural persons can be considered as the embodiment of the corporation (Dewey, 1926). This is particularly true in view of the cases decided by the high court with the reasoning of Lord Reid adopted in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v Nattras was followed. In this way, the directing mind and will of the company can be described as a person working at a senior position in the company whose authority to perform as directed and for the benefit of the compa ny, has been derived of the board of directors of the company (Gobert, 1994). In order to identify the directing mind and will of a particular company, it is required that the better person who has the management and control regarding the act in question, needs to be identified. Piercing the corporate veil One of the major advantages associated with the formation of a corporate entity is the limited liability of the shareholders. But there are certain circumstances where the law allows the courts to disregard the corporate entity. Such situation is known as piercing the corporate veil. It is the most frequently used method to hold the shareholders responsible for the acts of the corporation. In this way, piercing the corporate veil is related with the situation where the courts are allowed by the law to disregard the limited liability of the corporation and would be shareholders or the directors of the corporation, personally liable for the actions or the debts of the company. Piercing the veil is most commonly used in those operations (Dewey, 1926). However it needs to be noted that generally a strong presumption is present among the courts against the piercing of the corporate veil. Therefore the courts become very dubious the real only in cases involving serious misconduct, for exam ple, where there is the use of corporate form (Hansmann, Kraakman and Squire, 2006). Piercing the corporate veil is also known as lifting the corporate veil. It is a decision made by the courts to consider the rights or the duties of a company as the rights and liabilities imposed on the shareholders or the directors of the company. Generally a company is considered as a separate legal entity, and is solely responsible regarding its debts and liabilities. But in exceptional circumstances, the courts may decide to ignore the principle of separate identity of corporations and pierce the corporate veil. References Gobert, J. (1994) Corporate Criminality: Four Models of Fault, 14 Legal Studies 393 Hansmann, H Kraakman R and Squire, R., (2006) 'Law and the Rise of the Firm', 119 Harvard Law Review 1333 Lederman, E. (2000) Models for imposing corporate criminal liability: from adaptation and imitation toward aggregation and the search for self-identity, 4 Buffalo Criminal Law Review 641 J Dewey, (1926) 'The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality' 35 Yale Law Journal 655