Corporate criminal liability refers to the degree at which a corporate organization may become responsible the impact of their employee activities. The extent of liability may be categorized as a strict corporate liability or vicarious corporate liability. Strict corporate liability is a compulsory criminal responsibility when the actions of an employee result in injury, damage or death, even when the employee did not have criminal intentions. Ideally, corporates take strict liability to forbid the criminal activity from taking place (Lipman 359). For example, a corporate restaurant may be prosecuted for serving customers with expired foodstuffs. While the act of serving expired food may be to the interest of the owner as opposed to throwing it away, serving customers with expired food exposes them to potential foodborne ailments or even death. Probably, the chef may not have intended to commit anything illegal, but eventually, if the customers launched a complaint, the corporate owner becomes liable for the actions of the chef. On the contrary, vicarious corporate criminal liability means that the corporate is only responsible for employee actions that emanate from negligence (Hyewon, and Nelson 337). For instance, if an employee takes alcohol before embarking on a journey using a company vehicle, and unfortunately, causes an accident, the corporate organization is liable for any damages, injuries or death, if and only if, the employer was not privy that the employee was taking alcohol on the job.
There are various factors that a federal prosecutor should consider before prosecuting a company against corporate criminal liability. Firstly, the prosecutor has to evaluate the gravity of the offense; while evaluating the seriousness of the crime committed. It is important that assessments are conducted to determine the risk of harm of the offense to the public and applicable priorities and policies, if available, that guide on the prosecution of corporations. Secondly, the prosecutor ought to establish the pervasiveness of the offense within the corporation together with complicity levels, and whether corporate management condones such offenses. Besides, it is critical to evaluate the history of the corporation regarding similar conducts including civil and regulatory enforcements taken in the past against the offense (Lipman 359). Additionally, he/she should consider the voluntary and timely disclosures of offenses, and the willingness of the organization to cooperate with the investigators and work product privileges. Further, consideration has to be made regarding the adequacy and existence of a corporate compliance program and remedial actions towards improving discipline and termination of offenders. Finally, ensure assessment is done to establish collateral implications of the offense including disproportionate damage to shareholders. The most important factor is that the prosecutor must evaluate the seriousness of the crime and determine the extent of risk to the public. This is because if those assessments are done it becomes possible to establish the number of people affected by the offense and take remedial actions to stop the spread of the offense (Hyewon, and Nelson 337).
References
Lipman, Abigail H. "Corporate Criminal Liability." Am. Crim. L. Rev. 46 (2009): 359.
Hyewon, Han, and Nelson Wagner. "Corporate Criminal Liability." Am. Crim. L. Rev. 44 (2007): 337.
