Abstract
Defining and prosecuting corporate criminality has long been fraught with difficulty. As a result, the UK legislature is turning to an indirect form of omissions liability, by criminalising failure to prevent certain crimes like bribery and the facilitation of tax evasion. This article charts the development of indirect omissions corporate liability in the UK, and examines its rationales and benefits. Existing commentary has not explicated the implications of extension to other offences; I consider possible objections, regarding due process rights; reliance on omissions liability; effectiveness; and the use of the measures to date. Though its likely impact is less than clear, I conclude that, on balance, corporate liability for failure to prevent crime is justifiable and warrants being extended to economic offences and beyond.
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.
