Corporate liability and the criminalisation of failure

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Defining and prosecuting corporate criminality has long been fraught with difficulty. As a result, the UK legislature is turning to an indirect form of omissions liability, by criminalising failure to prevent certain crimes like bribery and the facilitation of tax evasion. This article charts the development of indirect omissions corporate liability in the UK, and examines its rationales and benefits. Existing commentary has not explicated the implications of extension to other offences; I consider possible objections, regarding due process rights; reliance on omissions liability; effectiveness; and the use of the measures to date. Though its likely impact is less than clear, I conclude that, on balance, corporate liability for failure to prevent crime is justifiable and warrants being extended to economic offences and beyond.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)57-70
Number of pages14
JournalLaw and Financial Markets Review
Volume12
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Apr 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Bribery Act 2010
  • Corporate compliance
  • Corporate criminal liability
  • Criminal Finances Act 2017

Cite this

@article{f7bd3b21b5dc403884548fed97a6da6c,
title = "Corporate liability and the criminalisation of failure",
abstract = "Defining and prosecuting corporate criminality has long been fraught with difficulty. As a result, the UK legislature is turning to an indirect form of omissions liability, by criminalising failure to prevent certain crimes like bribery and the facilitation of tax evasion. This article charts the development of indirect omissions corporate liability in the UK, and examines its rationales and benefits. Existing commentary has not explicated the implications of extension to other offences; I consider possible objections, regarding due process rights; reliance on omissions liability; effectiveness; and the use of the measures to date. Though its likely impact is less than clear, I conclude that, on balance, corporate liability for failure to prevent crime is justifiable and warrants being extended to economic offences and beyond.",
keywords = "Bribery Act 2010, Corporate compliance, Corporate criminal liability, Criminal Finances Act 2017",
author = "Liz Campbell",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/17521440.2018.1446694",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "57--70",
journal = "Law and Financial Markets Review",
issn = "1752-1440",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "2",

}

Corporate liability and the criminalisation of failure. / Campbell, Liz.

In: Law and Financial Markets Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, 03.04.2018, p. 57-70.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corporate liability and the criminalisation of failure

AU - Campbell, Liz

PY - 2018/4/3

Y1 - 2018/4/3

N2 - Defining and prosecuting corporate criminality has long been fraught with difficulty. As a result, the UK legislature is turning to an indirect form of omissions liability, by criminalising failure to prevent certain crimes like bribery and the facilitation of tax evasion. This article charts the development of indirect omissions corporate liability in the UK, and examines its rationales and benefits. Existing commentary has not explicated the implications of extension to other offences; I consider possible objections, regarding due process rights; reliance on omissions liability; effectiveness; and the use of the measures to date. Though its likely impact is less than clear, I conclude that, on balance, corporate liability for failure to prevent crime is justifiable and warrants being extended to economic offences and beyond.

AB - Defining and prosecuting corporate criminality has long been fraught with difficulty. As a result, the UK legislature is turning to an indirect form of omissions liability, by criminalising failure to prevent certain crimes like bribery and the facilitation of tax evasion. This article charts the development of indirect omissions corporate liability in the UK, and examines its rationales and benefits. Existing commentary has not explicated the implications of extension to other offences; I consider possible objections, regarding due process rights; reliance on omissions liability; effectiveness; and the use of the measures to date. Though its likely impact is less than clear, I conclude that, on balance, corporate liability for failure to prevent crime is justifiable and warrants being extended to economic offences and beyond.

KW - Bribery Act 2010

KW - Corporate compliance

KW - Corporate criminal liability

KW - Criminal Finances Act 2017

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050333579&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17521440.2018.1446694

DO - 10.1080/17521440.2018.1446694

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 57

EP - 70

JO - Law and Financial Markets Review

JF - Law and Financial Markets Review

SN - 1752-1440

IS - 2

ER -