Some Issues Of Criminal Liability Of The Legal Person

Abstract

This study points out, mainly, three aspects.

First of all, he points that, at present, more and more authors conceive the criminal liability of legal persons as a case of liability for the act of another, respectively as an exception to the principle of the personality of punishment, but at the same time they do not notice that, in law, any exception must have a proper justification, while this exception lacks any rational justification.

Then, he points that this situation dates back to the second half of the XIX century. At that time, the positive legislations enshrined the civil tort liability of the legal persons for the acts of their servants, but without specifying that this is an exceptional case, which derogates from the principle of guilt, according to which only the individual can be sanctioned (according to that principle, legal liability may arise only for its own unlawful act, committed consciously and voluntarily). In other words, from the outset, the relevant regulations failed to reveal two aspects: on the one hand, the fact that, in principle, no person can be penalised unless he or she is previously found guilty - what it means they can be charged, both physically and morally, for committing an unlawful act; on the other hand, the fact that some exceptions to the principle of guilt can be admitted only in civil matters and not in criminal matters - because, here, their admission is tantamount to the annulment of this principle.

Finally, this study points out that the criminal liability of legal persons also has other major shortcomings, such as endangering the security of states and violating the principle of separation of powers.