A Study on the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine

• Main Authors: Lin, Huei-Shian, 林惠賢
• Other Authors: Chen, Chih-Hsiung
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2018
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/7634n9

碩士 === 國立交通大學 === 科技法律研究所 === 106 === There has been a controversy over whether a corporate is able to commit a crime for a long time. Recently, food safety incidents and pollution incidents happened. The incidents invoke much of peoples’ attention to the punishment of corporate. However, under the influence of German Law, most scholars hold opposite opinions that corporate can be punishment by criminal procedure. The need of review of the theory basis has grown. We wonder how to establish a well legal structure to attribute the corporate criminal liability appropriately. From common law, the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine, which holds business officials, managers, and supervisors criminally liable for failing to prevent or correct violations that occur within their areas of responsibility and control. The conventional public welfare justification for the doctrine is that it provides added and important deterrence of legal violations that threaten human health and safety. It imposes liability upon officers for the illegal acts of other corporate agents, without proof that the officers directly participated in or authorized the crime. The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine can be one of the government’s most powerful tools for combating corporate misconduct, by lower the burden of proof of the prosecutors. However, the application to the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine may trigger a host of concerns because of the dichotomy between liability under criminal law versus liability under corporate law. Due to the overlap between obligations under the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine and corporate oversight duties, it may incur liability for failures to prevent statutory violations by firm employees under both the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine and Caremark liability principles. It is powerful and controversy, so applying this should be carefully.