Advertisement

Emergence and Convergence: Corporate Criminal Liability Principles in Overview

  • Mark PiethEmail author
  • Radha Ivory
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 9)

Abstract

Criminal law traditionally focuses on personal guilt. Its offenses commonly require proof of an accused person’s mental state and its fundamental principles hold that criminal sanctions should address the individual responsibility of the wrongdoer without harming innocent third parties. Consequently, lawmakers around the world have traditionally adhered to the principle societas delinquere non potest and excluded corporations from the category of potential criminal offenders. With industrialization, globalization, and the transnational regulation of economic crime this principle has been eroded. In this contribution, we survey the emergence of corporate criminal liability (CCL) principles and describe the substantive and procedural components of CCL in selected European and American jurisdictions. We observe a convergence around the notion that organizational systems and culture are at the core of corporate fault and we anticipate that the adoption, extension, and convergence of CCL rules will have considerable implications for stakeholders in, and observers of, corporate regulatory processes in industrialized and in emerging economies.

Keywords

Criminal Code Legal Person Corporate Liability Corporate Personality Vicarious Liability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Marnie Dannacher for her assistance in preparing the report that preceded this chapter.

References

  1. Allens Arthur Robinson (2008), ‘“Corporate Culture” as a Basis of the Criminal Liability of Corporations: Report for the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights and Business’, <http://www.business-humanrights.org/SpecialRepPortal/Home/Materialsbytopic/Extraterritorialjurisdiction>.
  2. American Law Institute (1962), Model Penal Code: Changes and Editorial Corrections in May 4, 1962 proposed Official Draft, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  3. Arzt, G. (2003), ‘Schutz juristischer Personen gegen Selbstbelastung’, Juristenzeitung 58, 456.Google Scholar
  4. Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (2005), APG Mutual Evaluation Report on India Against 2003 – FATF 40 Recommendations and 9 Special Recommendations, Sydney.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Law Reform Commission (2006), Same Crime, Same Time: Sentencing of Federal Offenders, Report 103, Sydney.Google Scholar
  6. Beale, S.S. (2009), ‘A Response to the Critics of Corporate Criminal Liability’, American Criminal Law Review 46, 1481.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U. (1986), Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, U. (1998), Was ist Globalisierung?, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  9. Belcher, A. (2006), ‘Imagining How a Company Thinks: What is Corporate Culture?’, Deakin Law Review 11, 1.Google Scholar
  10. Bihain, L. and A. Masset (2010), La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales en droit: Report to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  11. Bismuth, R. (2010), ‘Mapping a Responsibility of Corporations for Violations of International Humanitarian Law Sailing between International and Domestic Legal Orders’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 38, 203.Google Scholar
  12. Black, J. (2010), ‘Appendix A: A Review of Enforcement Techniques’, in: Law Commission of England and Wales, Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts: A Consultation Paper, Consultation Paper No. 195, London, 150.Google Scholar
  13. Boldova, M.A. and M.A. Rueda (2011), ‘La Responsabilidad de las Personas Jurídicas en el Derecho Penal Español’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  14. Böse, M. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in Germany’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  15. Braum, S. (2008), ‘Le principe de culpabilité et la responsabilité pénale des personnes morales, remarques relatives au projet de lois luxembourgeois’, in: S. Adam, N. Colette-Basecqz, and M. Nihoul (eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability in Europe, Brussels, 227.Google Scholar
  16. Cartwright, P. (2010), ‘Appendix B: Corporate Criminal Liability: Models of Intervention and Liability in Consumer Law’, in: Law Commission of England and Wales, Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts: A Consultation Paper, Consultation Paper No. 195, London, 187.Google Scholar
  17. Chen, J. (2008), Chinese Law: Context and Transformation, Leiden.Google Scholar
  18. Clarkson, C.M.V., H.M. Keating, and S.R. Cunningham (2007), Clarkson and Keating Criminal Law: Text and Materials, 6th edn, London.Google Scholar
  19. Cleary, S. and L. Candey (2010), ‘Who’s Watching You? Rise of Corporate Monitoring’, <http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk>.
  20. Clough, J. (2008), ‘Symposium: Corporate Liability for Grave Breaches of International Law’, Brooklyn Law Journal of International Law 33, 899.Google Scholar
  21. Coffee, J.C. (1999), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability: An Introduction and Comparative Survey’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 9. [cited as Coffee 1999a]Google Scholar
  22. Coffee, J.C. (1999), ‘The Future as History: The Prospects for Global Convergence in Corporate Governance and its Implications’, Northwestern University Law Review 93, 641. [cited as Coffee 1999b]Google Scholar
  23. Coffee, J.C. (2005), ‘Prosecutorial Experiments; Federal “Deferred Prosecutions Agreements” with Corporations are being Tailored to the Pet Projects of Government Lawyers’, Boward Daily Business Review 51 (207), 12.Google Scholar
  24. Cotton, J. (2009), ‘A New, More American World?’, International Financial Law Review: Supplement – The 2009 Guide to Litigation, <http://www.iflr.com>.
  25. Crown Prosecutions Service of England and Wales (2010), ‘Corporate Prosecutions’ (last updated April 21, 2010), <http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/ corporate_prosecutions/#a10>.
  26. De Faria Costa, J.F. and T. Quintela de Brito (2010), Criminal and Administrative Liability of the Collective Entities in Portugal: Report to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. De Maglie, C. (2011), ‘Societas Delinquere Potest? The Italian Solution’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  28. Deckert, K. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in France’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  29. Department of Justice Canada (2002), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability: Discussion Paper’, <http://www.justice.gc.ca>.
  30. DiMento, J.F.C. and G. Geis (2005), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the United States’, in: S. Tully (ed.), Research Handbook on Corporate Legal Responsibility, Cheltenham (UK), 159.Google Scholar
  31. Drew, K. for UNICORN (2005), ‘Complying with the OECD Anti-bribery Convention: Corporate Criminal Liability and Corruption: Exploring the Legal Options: Seminar held on the 12th of December 2005 Hosted by The Crown Prosecution Service’, <http://www.againstcorruption.org>.
  32. Emberland, M. (2006), The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protections, Oxford.Google Scholar
  33. Eversheds Fraud Group (2010), ‘Fraud and Financial Crime E-Briefing’, <http://www.eversheds.com/uk/home/services/fraud_and_financial_crime/ebriefings.page?>.
  34. Faure, M. (1999), ‘Criminal Responsibilities of Legal and Collective Entities: Developments in Belgium’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 105.Google Scholar
  35. Ferguson, J. (1999), ‘The Basis for Criminal Responsibility of Collective Entities in Canada’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 153.Google Scholar
  36. Fifield, A. (2010), ‘Oil Spill: Senators Scorn Efforts to Pass Blame’, Financial Times, May 12, 2010, 6.Google Scholar
  37. Financial Action Task Force (2007), First Mutual Evaluation Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism: People’s Republic of China, June 29, 2007, Paris.Google Scholar
  38. Financial Action Task Force (2008), Third Mutual Evaluation Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financial of Terrorism: Hong Kong, China, July 11, 2008, Paris.Google Scholar
  39. Ford, C. and D. Hess (2009), ‘Can Corporate Monitorships Improve Corporate Compliance?’, Journal of Corporation Law 34, 679.Google Scholar
  40. Giddens, A. (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Stanford.Google Scholar
  41. Giddens, A. (1999), ‘Risk and Responsibility’, Modern Law Review 62, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gobert, J. (2008), ‘The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 – Thirteen Years in the Making but was it Worth the Wait?’, Modern Law Review 71, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Godinho, J.A.F. (2010), Country Report Macau SAR: Report to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  44. Group of States against Corruption (2004), Second Evaluation Round: Evaluation Report on Poland, May 14, 2004, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  45. Group of States against Corruption (2006), Second Evaluation Round: Evaluation Report on Hungary, March 10, 2006, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  46. Hasnas, J. (2009), ‘The Centenary of a Mistake: One Hundred Years of Corporate Criminal Liability’, American Criminal Law Review 46, 1329.Google Scholar
  47. Heine, G. (1995), Die strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit von Unternehmen, Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  48. Heine, G. (2000), ‘Corporate Liability Rules in Civil Law Jurisdictions: Room Document’, DAFFE|IME|BR (2000) 23, Paris (OECD).Google Scholar
  49. Heine, G. (2008), ‘Criminal Liability of Enterprises in Switzerland – A New Programme: Organisational Deficiencies’, in: S. Adam, N. Colette-Basecqz, and M. Nihoul (eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability in Europe, Brussels, 303.Google Scholar
  50. Henning, P.J. (2009), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability and the Potential for Rehabilitation’, American Criminal Law Review 46, 1417.Google Scholar
  51. Hilf, M. (2008), ‘Section 2 – La responsabilité pénale des personnes morales en Autriche regime de la nouvelle loi autrichienne sur la responsabilité des entreprises’, in: S. Adam, N. Colette-Basecqz, and M. Nihoul (eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability in Europe, Brussels, 45.Google Scholar
  52. Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (2008), The 2008 Humanitarian Accountability Report, Geneva.Google Scholar
  53. Jelínek, J. and K. Beran (2011), ‘Why the Czech Republic Does Not (Yet) Recognize Corporate Criminal Liability: A Description of Unsuccessful Law Reforms’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  54. Jiachen, L. (1999), ‘The Legislation and Judicial Practice on Punishment of Unit Crime in China’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 71.Google Scholar
  55. Keulen, B.F. and E. Gritter (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the Netherlands’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  56. Khanna, V.S. and T.L. Dickinson (2007), ‘The Corporate Monitor: The New Corporate Czar?’ Michigan Law Review 105, 1713.Google Scholar
  57. Kulesza, W. (2010), Corporate Criminal Liability in Poland: Report to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  58. Langón Cuñarro, M. and P.J. Montano (2010), Corporate Liability in Uruguay? Report to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  59. Laufer, W.S. (2006), Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds: The Failure of Corporate Criminal Liability, Chicago.Google Scholar
  60. Law Commission of England and Wales (1996), Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter, Report No. 237, London.Google Scholar
  61. Law Commission of England and Wales (2008), Tenth Programme of Law Reform, Law Com. No. 311, London. [cited as LCEW 2008a]Google Scholar
  62. Law Commission of England and Wales (2008), Reforming Bribery, Report No. 313, London. [cited as LCEW 2008b]Google Scholar
  63. Law Commission of England and Wales (2010), Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts: A Consultation Paper, Consultation Paper No. 195, London.Google Scholar
  64. Lloyd, R., S. Warren, and M. Hammer (2008), 2008 Global Accountability Report, London.Google Scholar
  65. McCormick, J. (2009), ‘Enlargement and the Meaning of Europe’, in: C. Rumford (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of European Studies, Los Angeles, 209.Google Scholar
  66. Manacorda, S. (2008), Imputatione collettiva et responsibiliá personale, Uno studio sui paradigmi ascrittivi nel diritto penale internationale, Torrino.Google Scholar
  67. Manozzi, G. and F. Consulich (2008), ‘Criminal Liability of Corporations in the Italian Legal System: An Overview’, in: S. Adam, N. Colette-Basecqz, and M. Nihoul (eds.), Corporate Criminal Liability in Europe, Brussels, 207.Google Scholar
  68. Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force (2008), Mutual Evaluation Report Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financial of Terrorism Qatar, April 8, 2008, Bahrain. [cited as MENAFATF 2008a]Google Scholar
  69. Middle East and North Africa Financial Action Task Force (2008), Mutual Evaluation Report on Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financial of Terrorism United Arab Emirates, April 9, 2008, Bahrain. [cited as MENAFATF 2008b]Google Scholar
  70. Mylonopoulos, C. (2010), Corporate Criminal Liability and the Greek Law: Report to the XVIIIth International Congress of Comparative Law, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  71. Nanda, V.P. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in the United States: Is a New Approach Warranted?’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  72. New South Wales Law Reform Commission (2003), Sentencing: Corporate Offenders, Report 102, Sydney.Google Scholar
  73. Nielsen, G.T. (1999), ‘Criminal Liability of Collective Entities – The Danish Model’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 189.Google Scholar
  74. Nijboer, J.F. (1999), ‘A Plea for a Systematic Approach in Developing Criminal Procedural Law Concerning the Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Corporate Entities’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 303.Google Scholar
  75. OECD (2000), Belgium: Review of Implementation of the Convention and the 1997 Recommendation, June 27, 2000, Paris. [cited as OECD 2000a]Google Scholar
  76. OECD (2000), France: Review of Implementation of the Convention and the 1997 Recommendation, December 2000, Paris. [cited as OECD 2000b]Google Scholar
  77. OECD (2003), Germany: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, June 4, 2003, Paris.Google Scholar
  78. OECD (2004), France: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, January 22, 2004, Paris. [cited as OECD 2004a]Google Scholar
  79. OECD (2004), Korea: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, November 5, 2004, Paris. [cited as OECD 2004b]Google Scholar
  80. OECD (2004), Italy: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, November 29, 2004, Paris. [cited as 2004c]Google Scholar
  81. OECD (2005), Japan: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, March 7, 2005, Paris. [cited as OECD 2005a]Google Scholar
  82. OECD(2005), United Kingdom: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, March 17, 2005, Paris. [cited as OECD 2005b]Google Scholar
  83. OECD (2005), Hungary: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, May 6, 2005, Paris. [cited as OECD 2005c]Google Scholar
  84. OECD (2005), Belgium: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, July 21, 2005, Paris. [cited as OECD 2005d]Google Scholar
  85. OECD (2007), Poland: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, January 18, 2007, Paris. [cited as OECD 2007a]Google Scholar
  86. OECD (2007), Brazil: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, December 7, 2007, Paris. [cited as OECD 2007b]Google Scholar
  87. OECD (2008), South Africa: Phase 1 Review of Implementation of the Convention and 1997 Revised Recommendation, June 20, 2008, Paris. [cited as OECD 2008a]Google Scholar
  88. OECD (2008), United Kingdom: Phase 2bis Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, October 16, 2008, Paris. [cited as OECD 2008b]Google Scholar
  89. OECD (2009), Czech Republic: Phase 2 Follow-up Report on the Implementation of the Phase 2 Recommendations: Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1997 Revised Recommendations on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, February 13, 2009, Paris. [cited as OECD 2009a]Google Scholar
  90. OECD (2009), Israel: Phase 1 Review of Implementation of the Convention and the 1997 Revised Recommendation, March 19, 2009, Paris. [cited as OECD 2009b]Google Scholar
  91. OECD (2009), Turkey: Phase 2bis Report on the Application of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the 1998 Recommendation on Combating Bribery in International Business Transactions, June 18, 2009, Paris. [cited as OECD 2009c]Google Scholar
  92. OECD (2010), ‘OECD Demands the Slovak Republic Establish Corporate Liability for Foreign Bribery’ (press release), January 18, 2010, <http://www.oced.org>.
  93. Parliament (2009), Joint Committee on the Draft Bribery Bill: First Report of Session 2008–09: Vol. 1 together with Formal Minutes, HL Paper 115-I, HC 430-I, July 28, 2009, London.Google Scholar
  94. Partnerships UK, Home and About PUK: Shareholders, <http://www.partnershipsuk.org.uk>.
  95. Passas, N. (1999), ‘Globalization, Criminogenic Asymmetries and Economic Crime’, European Journal of Law Reform 1(4), 399.Google Scholar
  96. Perrin, B. (2011), ‘La responsabilité pénale de l’entreprise en droit suisse’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  97. Pieth, M. (2003), ‘Die Strafrechtliche Verantwortung des Unternehmens’, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 121, 353.Google Scholar
  98. Pieth, M. (2004), ‘Risikomanagement und Strafrecht: Organisationsversagen als Voraussetzung der Unternehmenshaftung’, in: T. Sutter-Somm et al. (Hrsg.), Festgabe zum Schweizerischen Juristentag 2004, Basel, 597.Google Scholar
  99. Pieth, M. (2005), ‘Strafverfahren gegen das Unternehmen’, in: J. Arnold et al. (Hrsg.), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht: Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag, München, 599.Google Scholar
  100. Pieth, M. (2007), ‘Article 2. The Responsibility of Legal Persons’, in: M. Pieth, L.A. Low, and P.J. Cullen (eds.), The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary, Cambridge, 173. [cited as Pieth 2007a]Google Scholar
  101. Pieth, M. (2007), ‘Introduction’, in: M. Pieth, L.A. Low, and P.J. Cullen (eds.), The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary, Cambridge, 3. [cited as Pieth 2007b]Google Scholar
  102. Pieth, M. (2009), Schweizerisches Strafprozessrecht: Grundriss für Studium und Praxis, Basel.Google Scholar
  103. Pinto, A. and M. Evans (2003), Corporate Criminal Liability, London.Google Scholar
  104. Pitts, J.W. (2009), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Current Status and Future Evolution’, Rutgers Journal of Law & Public Policy 6, 334.Google Scholar
  105. Podgor, E.S. (2007), ‘A New Corporate World Mandates a “Good Faith” Affirmative Defense’, American Criminal Law Review 44, 1537.Google Scholar
  106. Prittwitz, C. (1993), Strafrecht und Risiko, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  107. Ruggie, J.G. (2007), ‘Business and Human Rights: The Evolving International Agenda’, American Journal of International Law 101, 819.Google Scholar
  108. Sacerdoti, G. (2003), ‘La Convenzione OCSE del 1997 e la sua laboriosa attuazione in Italia’, in: G. Sacerdoti (ed.), Responsabilità d’impresa e strumenti internazionali anticorruzione: Dale Convenzione OCSE 1997 al Decreto No. 231/2001, Milano.Google Scholar
  109. Salvo, N. (2011), ‘Principales Aspectos de la Nueva de Responsabilidad Penal de las Personas Jurídicas en Chile (Ley No. 20.393)’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  110. Santha, F. and S. Dobrocsi (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in Hungary’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  111. Serious Fraud Office UK (2009), ‘Approach of a Serious Fraud Office to Dealing with Overseas Corruption’, July 21, 2009, <http://www.sfo.gov.uk/media/107247/approach%20of%20the%20serious%20fraud%20office%20v3.pdf>.
  112. Shibahara, K. (1999), ‘Le droit japonais de la responsabilité pénale, en particulier la responsabilité pénale de la personne morale’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 39.Google Scholar
  113. Stark, F. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in Scotland: The Problems with a Piecemeal Approach’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  114. Stratenwerth, G. (2005), Schweizerisches Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil I: Die Straftat, 3. Aufl., Bern.Google Scholar
  115. Sunkin, M. (2003), ‘Crown Immunity from Criminal Liability in English Law’, Public Law, 716.Google Scholar
  116. The Economist, ‘A Special Report on Banking in Emerging Markets: They Might be Giants’, The Economist, May 15, 2010, 395.Google Scholar
  117. Thompson, R.C., A. Ramasastry, and M. Taylor (2009), ‘Transnational Corporate Responsibility for the 21st Century: Translating Unocal: The Expanding Web of Liability for Business Entities Implicated in International Crimes’, George Washington International Law Review 40, 841.Google Scholar
  118. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (1999), Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder to All Component Heads of Department and United States Attorneys, ‘Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations’, June 16, 1999, <http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/documents/reports/1999/charging-corps.PDF>.
  119. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (2003), Memorandum from Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General, to Heads of Department Components, United States Attorneys, ‘Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations’, January 20, 2003, <http://www.justice.gov/dag/cftf/corporate_guidelines.htm>.
  120. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (2006), Memorandum from Paul J. McNulty, Deputy Attorney General, to Heads of Department Components, United States Attorneys, ‘Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations’, December 12, 2006, <http://www.justice.gov/dag/speeches/2006/mcnulty_memo.pdf>.
  121. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (2008), Memorandum from Craig S. Morford, Acting Deputy Attorney General, for Heads of Department Components, United States Attorneys, ‘Selection and Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements with Corporations’, March 7, 2008, <http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00163.htm>. [cited as USDOJ, Office of the Deputy Attorney General 2008a]
  122. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (2008), Memorandum from Mark Filip, Deputy Attorney General, to Heads of Department Components, United States Attorneys, ‘Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations’, August 28, 2008, <http://www.justice.gov/dag/readingroom/dag-memo-08282008.pdf>. [cited as USDOJ, Office of the Deputy Attorney General 2008b]
  123. United States Department of Justice, Office of the Deputy Attorney General (2010), Memorandum from Gary G. Grindler, Acting Deputy Attorney General, ‘Additional Guidance on the Use of Monitors in Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements with Corporations’, May 25, 2010, <http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00166.htm>.
  124. United States Department of Justice, US Attorneys (1997), United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM), as revised and amended, <http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/28mcrm.htm#9-28.800>.
  125. United States Government Accountability Office (2009), Report to Congressional Requesters, Corporate Crime: DOJ has Taken Steps to Better Track its Use of Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements but should Evaluate Effectiveness GAO-10-110, <http://www.gao.gov/2009/guid/GL2009.pdf>.
  126. United States Sentencing Commission (2009), Guidelines Manual, September 15, 2009, in force November 1, 2009, and as amended November 1, 2010, <http://www.ussc.gov>.
  127. Van Kempen, P.H. (2011), ‘The Recognition of Legal Persons in International Human Rights Instruments: Protection Against and Through Criminal Justice?’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  128. Wagstyl, S. (2010), ‘A Change in Gear: Fast-recovering Emerging World Companies Form a Growing Number of the Largest Global Groups, Changing the Corporate Landscape and Posing Stiff Competition for Western Rivals’, Financial Times, May 12, 2010, 7.Google Scholar
  129. Waldman, A. (2002), ‘Bhopal Seethes, Pained and Poor 18 Years Later’, New York Times, September 21, 2002, <http://www.nytimes.com>.
  130. Weigend, T. (2008), ‘Societas Delinquere non Potest? A German Perspective’, Journal of International Criminal Justice 6, 927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Weissman, A. and D. Newman (2007), ‘Rethinking Corporate Criminal Liability’, Indiana Law Journal 82, 411.Google Scholar
  132. Wells, C. (1999), ‘Developments in Corporate Liability in England and Wales and a New Offense of Corporate Killing – the English Law Commission’s Proposals’, in: A. Eser, G. Heine, and B. Huber (eds.), Criminal Responsibility of Legal and Collective Entities, Freiburg i.Br., 119.Google Scholar
  133. Wells, C. (2000), ‘Criminal Responsibility of Legal Persons in Common Law Jurisdictions: Room Document’, DAFFE|IME|BR (2000) 22, Paris (OECD).Google Scholar
  134. Wells, C. (2001), Corporations and Criminal Responsibility, 2nd edn, Oxford.Google Scholar
  135. Wells, C. (2010), ‘Appendix C: Corporate Criminal Liability: Exploring Some Models’, in: Law Commission of England and Wales, Criminal Liability in Regulatory Contexts: A Consultation Paper, Consultation Paper No. 195, London, 187.Google Scholar
  136. Wells, C. (2011), ‘Corporate Criminal Liability in England and Wales: Past, Present, and Future’, in this volume.Google Scholar
  137. Woods, S. and B. Scharffs (2002), ‘Applicability of Human Rights Standards to Private Corporations: An American Perspective’, The American Journal of Comparative Law 50, 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Zeder, F. (2006), VbVG: Verbandsverantwortlichkeitsgesetz Unternehmensstrafrecht: Textausgabe mit Materialien und Anmerkungen samt einer Darstellung der Rechtslage in 27 europäischen Staaten und den Bestimmungen über die Verbandsverantwortlichkeit im Finanzstrafgesetz, Wien.Google Scholar
  139. Zerk, J. (2006), Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility: Limitations and Opportunities in International Law, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business TransactionsParisFrance
  3. 3.Basel Institute on Governance,University of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations