Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Submitted by:

Supervisor

Institution Affiliation
Abstract

Corporations are an integral part of any society. As corporations become significant players in
economic development, many people risk getting victimized by their activities. Under the early
common law, corporations were not indictable for any kind of crime. Corporations appeared as
an artificial legal person, which signified the absence of mens rea. Therefore, they could not be
held liable for criminal activities or get imprisoned. However, the new laws state that
corporations can be charged for violation of statutory laws. Corporate criminal liability is a crime
which is committed by a group of people for the benefit of a corporation.

The paper explores the corporate criminal liability in India. In India, the corporate criminal
liability falls under criminal law. It provides the extent to which a corporation, as a legal entity,
is responsible for the deeds of its workers. For instance, when employees commit crimes like
false claims, they make statements that are not truthful to the customer. In such instances, the
company will be held liable for the damaging information provided by its workers. Criminal
liability is administered under the customs of vicarious liability, making it distinctive from
statutory offences that make a corporation liable for specific offences. The main question that
arises concerning corporate liability is whether corporates can commit crimes and whether they
are criminally responsible for specific criminal acts. The study looks into the recent researches
into corporate criminal liability to understand instances when companies are held accountable for
their activities. Also, it provides corporate punishment that is related to criminal liability.

The corporate criminal liability in India has continued to gain importance over the past few years
more in the social spheres. Today, corporate criminal liability deals with safety norms,
environmental laws, consumer protection, and occupational health. Also, it deals with
companies' corporate governance policies to determine whether or not an organization adheres to
corporate laws. The paper examines the confines of corporate criminal liability in India, along
with the recommendations to be integrated into the country's legislation. Besides, the study
provides an in-depth analysis of landmark cases in India that utilized the model of criminal
liability.

Keywords: Corporate criminal liability, criminal law, vicarious liability, corporate punishment
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.2. Research Problem ................................................................................................................. 5

1.3. Existing Legal Situation ....................................................................................................... 6

1.4. Review of Literature............................................................................................................. 6

1.5 Scope and objectives of the study ......................................................................................... 8

1.6. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 9

2. Models of Corporate Criminal Liability in India ...................................................................... 10


2.1. Derivative model ................................................................................................................ 10

2.1.1. Identification Doctrine ................................................................................................. 10

2.1.2. Vicarious Liability ....................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Organizational Model ......................................................................................................... 11

3. Punishment for Corporate Criminal Liability in India .............................................................. 11


3.1. Feasibility of Fine............................................................................................................... 11

3.2. Towards New Forms .......................................................................................................... 12

3.3. Economic Sanctions ........................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1. Corporate death............................................................................................................ 13

3.3.2. Temporary closure ....................................................................................................... 13

3.3.3. Rehabilitations of crime victims .................................................................................. 13

3.4. Social Sanctions ................................................................................................................. 13

4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 14
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 15

1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction

Corporations are separate legal entities created through an established registration process. The
corporations have liabilities and rights, which are different from the shareholders. The powers of
multinational corporations continue to grow. Today, these companies play a critical role in
human life. As the power of corporations continues to grow, it is essential that countries start to
impose some forms of control and accountability on their operations.

The corporate criminal liability in India is fundamentally the respondent superior doctrine which
borrows ideas from tort law and incorporates them into criminal law. Criminal liability is
concerned with activities that involve violation of the criminal laws 1. Such criminal acts include
bribery. The act involves taking money from a person to influence his decision. Managers in
corporations can engage in bribery by offering money to county officials to approve their
business permits. When such criminal acts happen, the corporations will be held liable for the
actions of the workers. It is based on the Latin Maxim stating actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit
rea. The statement means that to make a person liable for any offence; there should be proof that
a forbidden act has been done. Therefore, all criminal acts have two elements: the mental
element called mens rea and a physical element called actus reus. Under this corporations can be
convicted because of illegal activities by their agents, as long as the agents were serving within
the mandated authority. Therefore, provided there is a relationship between a worker's corporate
tasks and criminal activities, then a corporation can be convicted for the acts of their workers.

The Indian judiciary system agrees that corporations can form a criminal conspiracy, so they
should be charged for their employee's conduct2. Criminal liability is also recognized under
criminal laws and the Companies Act in India. The paper examines the corporate criminal
liability in India, along with the recommendations to be integrated into the country's legislation.

1
Ahmad, Tabrez, et al. "Satyam Scam in the Contemporary corporate world: A case study in Indian
Perspective." IUP Journal (2010).

2
Gupta, P. K., and Sanjeev Gupta. "Corporate frauds in India–perceptions and emerging issues." Journal
of Financial Crime 22.1 (2015): 79-103.
Besides, the study provides an in-depth analysis of landmark cases in India that utilized the
model of criminal liability.

1.2. Research Problem

The significance of corporate criminal liability continues to raise several questions in India. It is
not clear whether corporate criminal liability deals with 'criminal companies' or 'corporate
criminals.' There is no specific answer for the above question because all cases must be
examined carefully to come up with the right decisions for the corporation's criminal liability.
Critics of this concept base their argument on two grounds. First, critics say that it is of no value
to punish corporates, yet they do not commit crimes themselves3. For instance, when the
management engages in criminal acts like embezzlement of funds, the corporation does not
perform these acts but it is the employees that perform the act, thus making the board of directors
as well as the employees criminally liabile in certain cases. It is the workers in an organization
that indulge in criminal acts. Secondly, the costs of criminal liability fall on consumers and
shareholder, and not the individuals that commit crimes.

The first objection is simplistic because the critics do not consider the structure of many
companies nowadays. Today, it is difficult for the management to point out one person for a
certain conduct. Besides, the concept provides an incentive for the managers to supervise their
juniors closely. Without corporate liability, the managers would become unquestionable in an
organization as they reap a lot of money from criminal conducts. The second criticism is baseless
as well because shareholders are aware of all risks associated with the investments 4. In most
instances, they will rejoice in the profits that arise from criminal acts. Therefore, it's still fair for
shareholders to share the costs when illegal activities are discovered. As for the consumers, it
would be illogical for any company to pass fines to consumers in the form of higher prices. Such
policies will only scare aware consumers and urge them to search for alternative service

3
Arlen, Jennifer. "Corporate criminal liability: Theory and evidence." Research Handbook on the
Economics of Criminal Law 144 (2012): 152-53.
4
Whyte, David. "Regimes of permission and state-corporate crime." State Crime Journal 3.2 (2014): 237-
246.
providers. The trend will lead to reduced viability and loss of revenues by a company. Therefore,
there is no reason why a company should not be held liable for its criminal activities.

1.3. Existing Legal Situation

The Indian Courts continue to identify the directing mind for corporations and the concept of
criminal liability. The main issue here is to determine whether or not an individual that is
authorized to serve on behalf of a company is liable for prosecution in the event that the
company is not convicted. Several landmark cases in India have employed the doctrine of
criminal liability5. In the case of U.P Control Board Vs. Modi Distillery, the accused was
discharging polluted and noxious effluents into the nearby river. The discharge of poisonous
substances was in breach of the Water Act of 1974. In the ruling, the court decided that the
individuals responsible for the discharge along with the management could be held liable even
without prosecuting the company. In this case, even though the complainant was deemed
defective, the people involved in the company's actions ought to be charged.

However, the decision was overruled in Aneeta Hada V. M/S Godfather Tours. The ruling
given in Modi Distillery Case was deemed to be "restricted to its facts and made the decision
based on its factual matrix." Based on this ruling, the court held that in the event a corporation is
charged, then the charges against the managers and employees should be dropped. This ruling
was based on the fact that there cannot be vicarious liability unless a company is prosecuted.
There are several other provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)for charging corporations,
including criminal conspiracy, aiding criminal activities, and joint liability. The pronouncement
of landmark case decisions in India strengthens the idea of criminal liability for corporates. As
such, many corporations in the country are responsible for engaging in illegal practices

1.4. Review of Literature

Initially, corporations in India were not criminally liable for the acts of their members. A
corporation was seen as a fictional entity that cannot form the mandatory mens rea required for
an individual to commit a crime. The issue of whether companies can be charged for crimes that
require fines or imprisonment came up in several cases in India. In the case of Maharashtra Vs.
Syndicate Transport, the court ruled that it is impossible to impose only a fine in cases where

5
Clinard, Marshall, and Peter Yeager. Corporate crime. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2011.
statutory bodies have prescribed both fines and imprisonment as a punitive measure 6. However,
most people held the view that courts should never move away from the prescribed punishment
sanctions. But in this case, in case the court decided to prosecute firms for these types of crimes,
it ran a risk of failing to implement the sentence effectively. The issue led to the development of
corporate criminal liability in India.

Criminal liability in India came into the limelight during the groundbreaking case of Standard
Chartered Bank Vs. Directorate of Enforcement. The court overruled the previous views held
in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). Most people held onto the idea that companies
are not immune to prosecution when the courts prescribe mandatory imprisonment as the only
punishment. Since corporations cannot be given a prison sentence, the prosecution is unable to
prescribe the punishment. However, in instances where the prescribed punishment is both fines
and imprisonment, the courts can impose penalties against the affected corporation. The courts
cannot apply the same reasoning regarding people. Regarding companies, courts can always
ignore imprisonment and impose fines.

Therefore, there is no immunity blanket for organizations from prosecution for criminal activities
just because the courts will be forced to ignore mandatory imprisonment as a form of
punishment7. In such instances where corporations are liable for crimes which punishment is
both fines and imprisonment, the court then will have the judicial discretion of imposing fines.
The rule applies only where corporations are found guilty of criminal offences in their practices.
The criminal liability in corporations diversified the interpretive powers of Indian courts from
their traditional views. Courts endorsed the idea that punishments must go beyond simple words
and no offences should go unpunished because the technical interpretation of the punishment is
too constricting or restrictive to the statute's intent.

6
Uhlmann, David M. "Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements and the erosion of corporate
criminal liability." Md. L. Rev. 72 (2012): 1295.
7
Harlow, James W. "Corporate criminal liability for homicide: a statutory framework." Duke Law
Journal (2011): 123-166.
If a corporation breaches the law in India, the court can now impose fine because corporates
cannot get subjected to the punishment of imprisonment8. Companies are not protected from
prosecution just because the prosecution can prescribe mandatory imprisonment. The court
ruling in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc served to reiterate the law
principles that were laid down in the Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement case. In this case, the Iridium India Limited had filed a case against Motorola
Company for offences of cheating (under section 420) and conspiracy (under section 120B) of
the IPC. The complainant, Iridium India Limited said that the defendant had lied and conspired
with other firms in order to get funds for financing the 'Iridium Project.' On the basis of
information provided, there were several other financial institutions that put their investments
into this project. However, the project was unviable and led to massive losses to all investing
companies. Iridium India Limited alleged that the failure was due to false representations by
Motorola Inc. The court agreed with the charges and allowed for the prosecution to continue.
They stated that corporations are not nowadays entitled to claim immunity from prosecution
against criminal charges simply because they do not have mens rea, which is necessary to
commit criminal activities9.

1.5 Scope and objectives of the study

The scope of this research covers corporate criminal liability in India. It covers the different
elements of crimes committed within the corporate environment and what makes corporate crime
a relatively challenging issue for law-enforcing agencies. It also tackles the identity of
wrongdoers and the power of corporations to affect communal peace. The emergence of
corporate crimes and the lacks of clear guidelines for criminal liability has been a problem in
Indian courts for a long time.

The study also clarifies on the forms of corporate punishments for criminal liability. Apart from
fines, courts should also impose fines and sanctions as a way of preventing criminal offences by

8
Sahu, Manjeet. "Criminal liability of corporation: an Indian perspective." Available at SSRN 2192308
(2012).

9
Stewart, James G. "The turn to corporate criminal liability for international crimes: Transcending the
Alien Tort Statute." NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 47 (2014): 121.
companies. Also, there are several shortcomings that affect the implementation of laws regarding
criminal liability in India. The study, therefore, attempts to analyze the IPC laws about criminal
liability in the country. Also, it discusses the amendments that the government should
incorporate into the legal system to ensure corporations abide by state laws in all their
operations. The study looks at the major models of criminal liability in India and the emerging
trends with respect to corporate crimes. Overall, the study provided an in-depth look at corporate
criminal liability in India.

1.6. Research Question:

1. What are the main models of corporate criminal liability in India?


2. Are there other types of punishment for corporate criminal liability in India other than
fines?

1.7. Methodology

The study uses secondary sources that include journals, magazines, books, and web content. The
sources provide elaborate information about case criminal liability case laws, provisions, and
elaborates on the concept of criminal liability in India. The research provides both analytical and
diagnostic study. The major part of the study is analytical in nature. It includes several
applications of research to understand the significant concepts of criminal liability in India at
large. The study analyzes the models of criminal liability, basing the analysis on India and its
legal system. It explores the origin of the law and the early landmark cases that provided a solid
foundation for criminal liability cases in India. The research also provides a comparative analysis
of the major development in India's criminal court systems. India has adopted and incorporated
several international principles to deal with corporate criminal liability and ensure organizations
are held responsible for the criminal offences they engage in.
2. Models of Corporate Criminal Liability in India

According to section 2 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, everyone is liable to punishment. In many
countries, you will find section 11 to be common. Indian courts' identification approach is
inherited from England. The Corporate Criminal Liability in India has twin models and are
discussed below:

2.1. Derivative model

In this model, the liability of any organization is always a derived liability. It is derived from the
wrongful actions of people employed or has any relationship with the organization10. The
liability of such people is usually put on the organization because of the existing connection.
This derivative model is further divided into two; Identification Doctrine and Vicarious Liability.

2.1.1. Identification Doctrine

This doctrine is found in the England law of doctrines. Here, the doctrine tries to identify key persons
who act on behalf of the corporation. The key people are those whose mental state and conduct are
attributed to the corporation. The key persons when found in the wrongful act while acting within their
employment scope, the liability falls on the corporation. The wrongful act must be within their assigned
area, even if the person's act is unauthorized. This doctrine is a bit narrow.

2.1.2. Vicarious Liability

This doctrine is based on two legal Latin maxims. The 1st maxim states that anyone who acts through
another person shall be termed to have acted on his own. The 2nd maxim is respondent superior, which
means it is the responsibility of the master to answer. The vicarious liability doctrine is applicable in civil
liability cases11. But according to Indian courts; a corporation is designed as an artificial person and a
very different legal entity. Therefore, the application of vicarious liability in Corporate Criminal Liability
case is necessary.

10
Kremnitzer, Mordechai. "A possible case for imposing criminal liability on corporations in
international criminal law." Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.3 (2010): 909-918.

11
Kelly, Michael J. "Grafting the command responsibility doctrine onto corporate criminal liability for
atrocities." Emory Int'l L. Rev. 24 (2010): 671.
2.2. Organizational Model

The organization model help define the corporate liability of any organization involved in
criminal cases. According to this model, a crime is committed before men's rea (Intentions of
committing the crime) and actus reus (the criminal omission or act). But the big problem in
holding corporate-liable is; how can an artificial person have the mental intent of committing the
crime? Corporate culture may be helpful in crimes that require the mental state first to provide
the environment that the corporation's employee committed the crime in. The court also has to
prove that the corporation supported the commissioning of that offence or created an
environment for the crime to happen. All in all, according to Corporate Criminal Liability, the
corporation that the person was working with is helpfully responsible.

3. Punishment for Corporate Criminal Liability in India

Till now, courts have inadequate statutory and few new punishment forms. They still use only
fines as punishment to corporates. It is impossible to prosecute or imprison corporate for a crime
that deserves imprisonment or even capital punishment.

3.1. Feasibility of Fine

The use of fine is a common form of punishment worldwide. Fine is an advantageous form of
punishment that is inflicted by the court on almost every crime. This is because not all men agree
with transportation, imprisonment, solitude, compelled labour and banishment. Fine makes the
whole case different. When imposing fine, the court should consider the pecuniary circumstances
of the victim, magnitude of the crime and the character.

There are four different ways in which the imposition of fines can be made according to IPC.
Fine is a sole punishment for some offences, and there is a laid down limit for the fine. In some
cases, a fine serves as an alternative punishment with a limited amount. In other cases, it is very
imperative to fine the offender, but in other cases in obligatory with no pecuniary limit. Fines are
used traffic offences and offences against property. But serious offences like murder, rape, and
kidnapping, it is still questionable whether fine can be used as a punishment or not. Another
shortcoming of using fines as a form of punishment is that it eases the rich as it pins the poor.
Fines make it easy for rich people to get away with crimes by paying a huge fine, but the poor
may not be able to raise the fine12. Nevertheless, it is still an efficient punishment in some
crimes. Fines may not be the best punishment for corporate as they have a large amount of cash
in their bank accounts and will not feel the impact of the punishment. It also does not solve the
corporate crime as the corporate will neither be deterred nor retributes for their crimes. Looking
at the whole idea of using fines a form of punishment to the corporates, there is a need for a
better form of punishment to prevent the corporates from repeating crimes every now and then.

3.2. Towards New Forms

In all sections, fine is the only form of punishment to be imposed on companies. The Law
Commission in its report also stated that fine is only punishment to be imposed on companies
when found guilty of committing crimes. The report was written based on maxim lex non cogit
ad impossibilia. It states that law can only contemplate on something that can be done. The
reasoning is an indication that the law lacks a non-holistic viewpoint when it comes to dealing
with the criminal liability of corporates. It is, therefore, high time for the legislature to come up
with new forms of punishment and perfectly incorporate them in the justice system. Other forms
of punishment that the legislature can be divided into two:

 Economic Sanctions
 Social Sanctions

The sanctions are designed with deterrence as the ultimate objective

3.3. Economic Sanctions

These sanctions include many types of monetary and other forms that may result in a company
incurring many losses. Apart from fines, these economic sanctions include:

12
Tombs, Steve, and David Whyte. The corporate criminal: Why corporations must be abolished.
Routledge, 2015.
3.3.1. Corporate death

It involves a company being forced to exit the division its criminal behaviour has been
continuously found. For example, the food section of a company may be forced to shut down
after several warnings of poisonous substances found in their food staff. If such sanctions were
there seven years ago when a famous oil company cause loss of many people that could have
been the best punishment to fine. The sanction should be imposed on the first instance without
any warning as if not, many lives may be lost. Like a manufacturer of low-quality aircraft
engines may cause loss of many lives when the planes crash.

3.3.2. Temporary closure

Another form of corporate punishment should include temporary closure of the company for a
specific period of time depending on the crime. This can serve as the best alternative to corporate
death if the crime is not that harmful to the community. Like for example, closing down a
company for pollution purpose until it comes up with the best technology to control its pollution.

3.3.3. Rehabilitations of crime victims

The companies should be made to rehabilitate crime victims of their crimes. They should erase
all traces of the effect brought to the victims by their crimes. For example, if the company is
polluting the community river, it should be made to clean the riverbank that they polluted
completely. Even though this form of punishment may take sometimes, but it is the best way for
corporates to undone their crimes.

3.4. Social Sanctions

For any company, its goodwill is at its soul and heart. Once the company loses its goodwill, its
strength is brought to a standstill. For any company, reputation is the most important thing that
should not be tarnished13. The loss of a company's reputation connotes their sense of shame and
increased reluctance in doing business in future. For corporate, reputation is the reluctance of
customers and workers to work with the corporation in future. The loss of a corporate's
reputation brings shame to the corporate manager. Reputation also deals with a competitive price

13
Pieth, Mark, and Radha Ivory. "Emergence and convergence: Corporate criminal liability principles in
overview." Corporate Criminal Liability. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011. 3-60.
that a firm with a good reputation charges its customer for products. An employer with a good
reputation can attract worker and pay them lower wages. But once the reputation is harmed, it
can cause the company the biggest stigmatizing effect as even customers will be scared to buy
from the corporation.

The Social Sanction form of punishment can be done by forcing the corporation to publish its
crimes publicly and fund the whole publication process14. This punishment can serve as the
strongest deterrence not to commit similar crimes. The corporate's shareholders will also be
actively involved in stopping the organizational structures from promoting crime committing.
However, in some cases, reputation punishment is not an effective punishment for some
corporations. This because corporations that harm third parties like environmental pollution does
not affect customers. In such cases, destroying the image of a corporation will not affect the
corporation in most instances. There are also those firms that do not have reputations such as the
'Fly-by-night' corporations may not suffer from any form of reputation sanction. But for those
firms that care about their reputation and depends on it to operate, reputation sanctions may
cause it a huge financial loss. Their shares will not be attractive to investors, and even customers
will be scared to buy their products. It can turn out to be the biggest form of punishment for
them.

4. Conclusion

Corporate criminal liability continues to gain significance in India. The concept is widely applied
in several domains, including occupational health, consumer protection, safety norms, and
environmental law. Until the last decade, corporate crimes were not given a lot of thought.
However, with the emergence of criminal liability which puts a lot of focus on the accountability
of managers and the blameworthiness of an organization, India has experienced major changes in
the sphere of criminal laws. Today, issues linked to the operation of companies are closely
related to the management so as to prevent triggering criminal liability.

14
Robson, Regina A. "Crime and punishment: rehabilitating retribution as a justification for
organizational criminal liability." Am. Bus. LJ 47 (2010): 109.
The study shows that the law regarding the imposition of corporate criminal liability settles on
the facts that corporations also commit criminal offences, and they should be held responsible for
their criminal activities. However, the situation is a bit different in India. Even though they strive
to make companies accountable for their actions, the judicial system and set statutes do not
impose any other form of punishment other than fines. For example, when a corporation commits
criminal acts like violating the environmental laws through water pollution, is should be
punished through sanctions. Therefore, it is recommended that the Indian legislature makes
amendments on the criminal law. The judicial system should clearly define the law defining
prosecution for criminal liability in corporations and incorporates several punishments apart
from fines. Corporate punishments should include economic and social sanctions. Taking
criminal liability with the seriousness it deserves and implementing the necessary legal steps will
help reduce the number of corporate crimes. The idea should not just apply to the corporate
criminal offences but other major issues in Indian society. Following this path is the only way to
help the society grow positively.
Bibliography

Ahmad, Tabrez, et al. "Satyam Scam in the Contemporary corporate world: A case study in
Indian Perspective." IUP Journal (2010).

Arlen, Jennifer. "Corporate criminal liability: Theory and evidence." Research Handbook on the
Economics of Criminal Law 144 (2012): 152-53.

Clinard, Marshall, and Peter Yeager. Corporate crime. Vol. 1. Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Harlow, James W. "Corporate criminal liability for homicide: a statutory framework." Duke Law
Journal (2011): 123-166.

Gupta, P. K., and Sanjeev Gupta. "Corporate frauds in India–perceptions and emerging issues."
Journal of Financial Crime 22.1 (2015): 79-103.

Kelly, Michael J. "Grafting the command responsibility doctrine onto corporate criminal liability
for atrocities." Emory Int'l L. Rev. 24 (2010): 671.

Kremnitzer, Mordechai. "A possible case for imposing criminal liability on corporations in
international criminal law." Journal of International Criminal Justice 8.3 (2010): 909-918.

Pieth, Mark, and Radha Ivory. "Emergence and convergence: Corporate criminal liability
principles in overview." Corporate Criminal Liability. Springer, Dordrecht, 2011. 3-60.

Robson, Regina A. "Crime and punishment: rehabilitating retribution as a justification for


organizational criminal liability." Am. Bus. LJ 47 (2010): 109.

Sahu, Manjeet. "Criminal liability of corporation: an Indian perspective." Available at SSRN


2192308 (2012).

Stewart, James G. "The turn to corporate criminal liability for international crimes: Transcending
the Alien Tort Statute." NYUJ Int'l L. & Pol. 47 (2014): 121.

Tombs, Steve, and David Whyte. The corporate criminal: Why corporations must be abolished.
Routledge, 2015.

Uhlmann, David M. "Deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements and the erosion of
corporate criminal liability." Md. L. Rev. 72 (2012): 1295.
Whyte, David. "Regimes of permission and state-corporate crime." State Crime Journal 3.2
(2014): 237-246.

Potrebbero piacerti anche