Corporate Criminal Liability
Corporate Criminal Liability: Overview
Definition:
Corporate criminal liability is the legal doctrine under which a company or organization can be held criminally responsible for offenses committed by its directors, employees, or agents in the course of business. This differs from individual criminal liability because the entity itself, not just the individual, can be punished.
Key Principles in Finland:
Finnish Criminal Code (Chapter 6) recognizes corporate liability. Legal entities can be held responsible for offenses if they were committed:
For the benefit of the company, or
Due to inadequate supervision or negligent organizational practices.
Penalties may include fines, conditional fines, confiscation, or operational restrictions.
Criminal liability applies not only to financial crimes but also environmental offenses, safety violations, corruption, and fraud.
Case Law Examples
Case 1: KKO 2016:20 – Corporate Environmental Violation
Facts:
A chemical manufacturing company discharged hazardous waste into a Finnish river.
The discharge violated environmental regulations and posed serious risk to public health.
Managers delegated responsibility, but the company’s internal control systems failed.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court convicted the company of an environmental crime under the Finnish Environmental Protection Act.
The court held the company liable because the offense occurred within the scope of its business, and there was gross negligence in supervision.
Significance:
Emphasized that corporate negligence and inadequate oversight can establish criminal liability, even if no individual employee is personally convicted.
Case 2: R 2012:451 – Banking Fraud by a Financial Institution
Facts:
A Finnish bank allowed employees to manipulate customer accounts to hide losses and inflate profits.
Senior management knew of irregularities but failed to act.
Court Ruling:
Both the company and individual executives were held liable.
The bank was fined substantially, and executives received prison sentences.
The court stressed the duty of care by senior management and that corporate benefit from illegal acts triggers liability.
Victim Implications:
Customers’ rights and financial safety were recognized.
Set a precedent for holding companies accountable even when the wrongdoing is executed by lower-level staff.
Case 3: KKO 2010:45 – Corporate Liability for Work Safety Violations
Facts:
A construction company failed to implement proper occupational safety protocols.
A fatal accident occurred due to lack of safety equipment and poor training.
Court Decision:
The Supreme Court convicted the company for negligence leading to death.
Liability was based on failure of corporate supervision and inadequate safety policies.
Significance:
Demonstrated that corporate liability extends to workplace accidents.
Emphasized that companies must actively enforce compliance with safety regulations.
Case 4: KKO 2013:12 – Corporate Liability in Tax Fraud
Facts:
A multinational corporation operating in Finland under-reported income and claimed false deductions.
Fraudulent activities were orchestrated by accounting staff but benefited the corporation directly.
Court Ruling:
The Supreme Court fined the corporation and imposed corrective measures.
Individual accountants were also prosecuted, but the company itself bore primary responsibility for the systemic fraud.
Significance:
Established that corporations can be held liable for financial crimes committed by employees if benefiting the company.
Highlighted the need for internal auditing and compliance systems.
Case 5: R 2015:198 – Data Protection Violation by a Telecom Company
Facts:
A telecom company failed to protect customer data.
Hackers accessed private customer information, and the company’s negligence contributed to the breach.
Court Decision:
The court found the company criminally liable for violation of data protection laws.
Liability was based on inadequate technical measures and lack of proper oversight.
Victim Implications:
The decision reinforced corporate duty to protect personal data and adhere to privacy regulations.
Highlighted that liability applies even without direct employee intent.
Case 6: KKO 2018:7 – Corporate Liability for Bribery
Facts:
A Finnish corporation paid bribes to secure government contracts abroad.
Senior management approved the payments indirectly through middle managers.
Court Ruling:
Both the company and responsible individuals were convicted.
The company was fined heavily, and international compliance standards were cited in the judgment.
Significance:
Reinforced that corporate benefit from illicit activity, even overseas, triggers liability.
Underlined the importance of anti-corruption compliance programs.
Key Takeaways from Case Law
Negligence & Failure to Supervise:
Companies can be criminally liable if their policies, systems, or supervision are inadequate.
Benefit to the Company Matters:
Liability often depends on whether the company benefited from the offense.
Corporate vs Individual Liability:
Liability can apply both to the company as an entity and to responsible executives, but each has distinct legal consequences.
Scope of Liability:
Cases show liability spans environmental law, workplace safety, financial fraud, bribery, and data protection.
Preventive Measures:
Courts highlight the importance of internal compliance, auditing, training, and risk management to reduce liability.
RELATED Blog
comments