A Comparative Study of the Role of Effective Monitoring and Control Mechanisms on Corporate Criminal Responsibility

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal law and Criminology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Ph.D Student of Criminal law and Criminology, University of Tehran, Tehran. Iran.

Abstract

Corporations often defend against criminal accusations by asserting that the wrongful actions of their representatives were arbitrary and contrary to the company’s established policies. They claim that despite implementing all reasonable preventative measures, the representative's criminal conduct violated the corporation's internal regulations. This raises a pivotal issue for judicial authorities, that is, whether these preventative measures influence corporate criminal responsibility if the corporation's claim is valid. This research, employing a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, seeks to elucidate and analyze this issue. The findings reveal diverse approaches across different legal systems. While some legal systems recognize the significance of these measures, others do not address them, resulting in ambiguous interpretations. The study identifies four main legal consequences of establishing such measures: negation of vicarious (responsibility) liability, avoidance of criminal responsibility, mitigation of punishment, and the potential for agreements to suspend prosecution of corporations. An analysis of Iran's legal system suggests that, despite legal ambiguities, effective corporate monitoring and control over representatives' behavior can mitigate corporate punishment or persuade prosecutors to issue an agreement to suspend prosecution.

Keywords

References

  1. منابع

    الف) فارسی

    1. ابصاری، میلاد (1398). ضوابط حاکم بر دادرسی کیفری اشخاص حقوقی. پایان‌نامه جهت اخذ درجۀ کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه تهران.
    2. آقایی‌نیا، حسین؛ محمودی جانکی، فیروز (1400). قانون جزای نمونه ایالات ‌متحدۀ آمریکا و یادداشت‌های توضیحی. تهران: میزان.
    3. الهام، غلامحسین، برهانی، محسن (1394). درآمدی بر حقوق جزای عمومی. ج 1، تهران: میزان.
    4. برهانی، محسن؛ پارساییان، عطیه (1392). عرف و مؤلفه‌های قانونی و مادی تشکیل‌دهندۀ پدیدۀ مجرمانه. حقوق اسلامی، 10(36)، بهار .
    5. رنجبر، حسین (1395). مسئولیت کیفری نیابتی. تهران: شهر دانش.
    6. شریفی، محسن (1398). مسئولیت کیفری اشخاص حقوقی در نظام کیفری ایران و آلمان. فصلنامۀ حقوق تطبیقی، 11(111)، بهار و تابستان.
    7. شمس ناتری، محمدابراهیم؛ کلانتری، حمیدرضا؛ زارع، ابراهیم؛ ریاضت، زینب (1396). قانون مجازات اسلامی در نظم حقوقی کنونی. تهران: میزان.
    8. طباطبائی، محمدحسین (1386). نهایة الحکمة. ج 2، قم: مرکز انتشارات آموزشی و پژوهشی امام خمینی (ره).
    9. طهماسبی، جواد (1396). جلوه‌های نوین حقوق کیفری، تهران: میزان.
    10. منصورآبادی، عباس (1396). حقوق جزای عمومی، ج 2، تهران: میزان.
    11. منصورآبادی، عباس (1398). مسئولیت کیفری اشخاص حقوقی در جدال دو قانون. مجموعه مقالات افق‌های نوین حقوق کیفری. تهران: میزان.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC), (2020). Corporate Criminal Responsibility, Australia, Report 136.
    2. Beviá, J. G. (2014). Compliance programs as evidence in criminal cases. In: Brodowski, D. et. al. (eds.), Regulating Corporate Criminal Liability. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    3. Biegelman, M. T. (2008). Building a world-class compliance program: Best practices and strategies for success. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
    4. Clifford Chance. (2016). Corporate Criminal Liability. London.
    5. De Smet, K., & Janssens, E. (2019). Criminal liability of legal entities under Belgian law, A High-level Overview. Compliance Elliance Journal, 5(2).
    6. Hallevy, G. (2012). The matrix of derivative criminal liability. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg.
    7. Huff, K. B. (1996). "The role of corporate compliance programs in determining corporate criminal liability: A suggested approach." Columbia. Law Review Association. Volume 96. Number 5.
    8. Minkes, J., & Minkes, L. (Eds.). (2008). Corporate and white collar crime. London. Sage.‌
    9. Kowal, S. M. (1998). Corporate compliance programs: A shield against criminal liability. Food and Drug Law Journal, Volume 53. Number 3.
    10. Leader-Elliott, I. (2002). The Commonwealth Criminal Code: a guide for practitioners. Australian institute of judicial Administration. Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department.‌
    11. Markoff, G. (2013). Arthur Andersen and the myth of the corporate death penalty: Corporate criminal convictions in the twenty-first century. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law. Volume 15, 3.
    12. Muñoz de Morales, M. (2014). “Corporate Responsibility and Compliance Programs in Australia”. In: Manacorda, S., Centonze, F., Forti, G. (Eds.), Preventing Corporate Corruption. The Anti-bribery Compliance Model. Springer, London.
    13. Martín, A. N., & de Morales, M. M. (2014). “Compliance Programs and Criminal Law Responses: A Comparative Analysis”. In: Manacorda, S., Centonze, F., Forti, G. (Eds.), Preventing Corporate Corruption. The Anti-bribery Compliance Model. Springer, London.
    14. OECD Anti-Corruption Network. (2015). Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
    15. Walsh, C. J., & Pyrich, A. (1994). Corporate compliance programs as a defense to criminal liability: Can a corporation save its soul. Rutgers Law Revie, volume 47, Number 2.
    16. Wellner, P. A. (2005). Effective compliance programs and corporate criminal prosecutions. Cardozo Law Review, volume 27, Number 1.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics