| Summary: | Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master
of Laws by Coursework and Research Report at the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg === With the upsurge of corporate activity in the world many countries have incorporated
ways in which to regulate corporate crimes. That has been achieved through
‘corporate criminal liability’. Companies are juristic persons, therefore criminal liability
cannot be attached to a company through its direct conduct. Unlike natural persons,
companies can only be found criminally liable through the conduct of their agents;
through the concept of vicarious liability.
With all jurisdictions in the world governing corporate crimes through vicarious
liability, there are different approaches that have been incorporated in regulating
corporate criminal liability. The United States of America uses a system known as
the principle of aggregation while the UK uses the doctrine of identification. With
South Africa using the basics of vicarious liability and with potential problems being
rooted in the constitutionality of the legislation governing corporate criminal liability, it
is possible that section 332 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not the most effective
approach to regulating corporate criminal liability === MT 2019
|
|---|
