Corporate criminal liability has become a significant concern globally, as white-collar crimes committed by corporations and their key personnel have far-reaching consequences. This paper explores the complex issue of attributing criminal intent to corporations, a concept known as mens rea. It delves into various jurisprudential models, such as the Organizational and Derivative models, and associated doctrines like the doctrine of Identification, Aggregation Theory, Respondent Superior, Special Vicarious Liability, and the Alternative model of liability. These models differ in their approach to determining a corporation's criminal intent and the individuals within the organization responsible for it.
The paper offers a comparative analysis of corporate criminal liability across different legal systems, highlighting the varying interpretations of corporate mens rea, the involvement of senior officers, and the requirement of benefit to the corporation. The French and European systems consider mens rea irrelevant in corporate liability, while systems like the U.S. and Dutch embrace the concept of corporate mens rea. The paper also discusses the shift from vicarious liability to direct liability in English and Canadian law.
