10 ALRAQABA . ISSUE 20 Among prominent and early examples are the collapse of the South Sea Company from 1719 to 1721 and the financial devastation caused by the dissemination of corruption and inland trade. Furthermore, more instances include accounting scandals in Enron and WorldCom, the United States, financial fraud in Parmalat, Italy, and corruption in Siemens, Germany. These cases are vivid examples of the overall scale and consequences of corporate crimes in the past decade and the immediate impact they had on stakeholders and markets. In liberal societies, especially in a free market system, the autonomy to conduct business without state intervention is crucial. However, the issues mentioned above require an adequate response from society and its legal systems. The prevailing culture back in the days suggested that civil liability only stems from corporate members and corporate bodies and the action of their subordinates with regard to the affiliated jobs. Given that the latter is but a legal entity, an immediate liability on the company is unconceivable, except that of a natural person. Thereafter, legal systems were developed, making immediate liability plausible for legal persons. Initially, these systems were limited to civil liability. However, with time, it has been supplemented by criminal liability. It is noteworthy that all arguments contradicting notions of this liability are unwelcomed at the present time. One of the most significant arguments called for by the opposite view is the argument that juridical persons are deprived of will and perception. Principle of Criminal Liability Before discussing the legal liability of a juristic person, we must address the basis or structure of such liability. The grounds for a person’s criminal liability is a fault. The rule stipulates that there shall be no liability without a fault, and there shall be no fault without aptitude. Criminal liability is based on a person’s willingness to commit a fault, whether intentionally or otherwise, while being aware of all its elements. The law defines this notion as the moral element or mens rea. The basis of a criminal personality is the moral element, which is the essence of criminalization, particularly when its anatomy is a material element. Mens rea can be defined as the psychologic constituent of a crime, which includes its psychological elements. Its foundations are knowledge and intent. Criminal liability, based on the foregoing, can only be applicable when a fault (whether intentional or otherwise) takes place. As long as the fault is found, liability shall also be found. A fault is conceivable when committed by a natural person because s/he is personally held accountable for her/his particular act and conduct. When a fault is affiliated with a distinctive person, then it is undoubtedly realistic. Nevertheless, it is not the case with a legal or juridical person. The conventional norm of criminal liability is that of a personal fault, therefore, it is inconceivable in the case of a legal person, for it has no actual will to be expressed. Comparatively, it can be said that the intention of a legal person is attributed to its representatives due to its subordination to a natural person, thus contradicting the Principle of Personality of Punishment. Anchored in the conventional grounds of personal fault, neither intention nor knowledge are to be attributed to a legal person. Applying such grounds is thereby considered inconceivable when it comes to criminal liability, as such liability is based on personal fault. The counter-response to this situation is to Legislations
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk0NA==