INTRODUCTION

Corporation is defined as, “a large business or organisation that under the law has the rights and duties of an individual and follows a specific purpose”.Corporate bodies are more corrupt and profligate than individuals because they have more power to do mischief and are less amenable to disgrace or punishment. They neither feel shame, remorse, gratitude nor goodwill”[1]

Corporate criminal liability pertains to the legal obligation placed upon a corporation or any other legal body for engaging in criminal activities. Corporate criminal accountability acknowledges that organisations can also participate in illegal behaviour, in contrast to individual liability which assigns responsibility to specific individuals for their actions. Corporate criminal liability is a legal principle that recognises the ability to hold businesses accountable for committing criminal acts, such as fraud, environmental violations, bribery, or other unlawful activity, due to their separate legal existence.

Companies play a substantial role in fostering economic growth and technological progress, they have also been implicated in engaging in actions that violate the fundamental rights of both individuals and communities. Corporations have been accused of engaging in a range of human rights misconduct. These charges prompt significant inquiries regarding the effectiveness of current legal structures in dealing with corporate wrongdoing, particularly in terms of establishing criminal culpability.“A comparative analysis of corporate criminal liability demonstrates that there are shared conceptualizations between common law and civil law systems, rather than stark contrasts. These shared conceptualizations revolve around the fundamental dichotomy between law and police as governing mechanisms, which can be observed in both common law and civil law system.”[2]

[1] Kally, Kunal Kaushik. A Critical Study on Corporate Criminal Liability with Special Reference to US and Indian Laws (January 23, 2020)

[2] Dubber, Markus D. “The Comparative History and Theory of Corporate Criminal Liability.” New Crim. L. Rev. 16, no. 2 (2013): 203-240.