Corporate criminal liability in South Africa: why section 332 of the criminal procedure act may not be most effective way to regulate corporate crimes in South Africa

• Main Author: Dzinotyiweyi, Tafaranazvo
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: 2019
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10539/27774

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