ALRAQABA . ISSUE 20 11 adopt a policy that recognizes the immediate liability of a legal person. This policy is also known as a modern standard followed in legal systems. According to the contemporary opinion, the intention of a legal person exists and is expressed by its human representatives. However, this representation does not mean that the intention of a moral person is affiliated with a natural person; it is rather the result of it. This norm however does not insinuate that the liability is joint between both parties. Instead, it is an independent liability as long as it is under the name or account of the legal person. The Stance of the Legislators in Kuwait The legislation authority in Kuwait issued Law 2/2023 amending Code 31/1970 to modify provisions of the Penal Code 16/1960, which recognizes the criminal liability of a private legal person. Circulated as a response to the UN Convention against Corruption, this law is known to be one of the most significant legislations issued lately. Although its promulgation has been behind time compared to the neighboring countries, it is still considered a commendable step. With this law, not only did legislators in Kuwait regulate criminal liability, but also address this matter with a number of distinctive laws, namely: First: The Law of Capital Markets Authority (CMA): in this law, the legislator recognizes the legal person’s liability and addresses it in the provisions, specifically in the definition of persons: natural and juridical. Nevertheless, the CMA Law prescribes the criminal sanctions on a legal person such as imprisonment which is inconceivable. There has not been a clear distinction in the penalties imposed on legal and natural persons, which is deemed to be impractical. The question that imposes itself here is, how can imprisonment be enforced as a penalty on a juridical person? Under these circumstances, the judge is obliged to impose a fine on the legal person while penalize the natural person with imprisonment. In this instance, there is a contradiction to the Principle of Judicial Exclusivity. The law imposed an equal amount of fine for both persons which deviates from the Proportionality of Punishment principle, particularly since financial solvency of a legal person differs from that of a natural person. Second: Anti-Money Laundering and CounterTerrorism Financing Law: This law is an excellent example of how legislators avoided past mistakes. Its Article 32 stipulates: “Without prejudice to the criminal liability of a natural person, any legal person who is involved in money laundering or in financing terrorism shall be imposed to a fine. The minimum limit of this fine is KD 50,000 and KD 1,000,000 as a maximum limit, or an equivalent amount to the money associated with the criminal act in question (or whichever is higher). A legal person may be penalized with either a permanent or temporary prohibition from specific commercial activities, either directly or indirectly, for a minimum of five years. The legal person’s offices used in perpetrating the crimes shall also be (either permanently or temporarily) shut down. The business of the legal person in question may be penalized by liquidation or by appointing an official receiver to manage the funds. A relevant judicial decision shall be published in the Official Gazette.” Legislations
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy Mjk0NA==