Abstract
This paper attempts a comparative analysis of corporate criminal liability in Nigeria, the United Kingdom, the United States and India. Candidly, it is trite that the law clothes a company with personality such that its rights and duties are distinct from those of its members, because a company is a legitimate entity. Under common law, companies are responsible for criminal offences subject to certain exceptions such as robbery, kidnapping, murder and rape. No mental state was required in this regard and the punishment that was then practicable was a fine that could simply be levied on a corporation. Presently, in offences involving proof of mens rea, companies will effectively be held liable by imputing the state of mind of employees and the directors who are the alter ego and directing minds of the corporation. While this is the position in Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the United States. India, however, is not in pace with the developments as well as they do not make corporations criminally liable and if or when they do, no other punishment is imposed on them except fine. The paper concludes by stating unequivocally that Nigeria should hold on to the alter ego doctrine due to its clarity and predictability but it should infuse the aggregation theory (collective knowledge) developed in the United States because that makes it easier for the prosecution of companies as against the single lane approach (the alter ego doctrine) which requires that companies should take responsibility for the persons having decision making authority for the policy of the corporation rather than the persons implementing such policies.
Highlights
Corporate crimes are defined as illegal acts, omissions or commissions by corporate organizations, social or legal entities or by corporate officials or employees acting in accordance with the organization’s operational objectives or standards, operating procedures and cultural norms, intended to benefit the corporations themselves (Lederman, 2001)
This paper attempts a comparative analysis of corporate criminal liability in Nigeria, the United Kingdom, the United States and India
The paper concludes by stating unequivocally that Nigeria should hold on to the alter ego doctrine due to its clarity and predictability but it should infuse the aggregation theory developed in the United States because that makes it easier for the prosecution of companies as against the single lane approach which requires that companies should take responsibility for the persons having decision making authority for the policy of the corporation rather than the persons implementing such policies
Summary
Corporate crimes are defined as illegal acts, omissions or commissions by corporate organizations, social or legal entities or by corporate officials or employees acting in accordance with the organization’s operational objectives or standards, operating procedures and cultural norms, intended to benefit the corporations themselves (Lederman, 2001). Companies are criminally liable subject to certain limits, such as assault, robbery, murder and rape. This position allows a corporation to be held criminally liable for acts of non-feasance in common law and this was later extended to cover only misfeasance. In this respect, no mental state was needed and the punishment that was practicable was a fine that could be paid by a company (Slapper, 2010). In the view of the above, this paper attempts a comparative analysis of corporate criminal liability by looking at the concept, the models, the laws and case law in Nigeria and other jurisdictions such as the United States of America, United Kingdom and India respectively
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
