CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

As corporations grow in scale and complexity, the traditional legal notion that a company lacks a punishable body or soul has become increasingly inadequate. Consequently, global legal systems have developed varying mechanisms to hold artificial corporate entities criminally accountable for the actions of their human agents. This study critically analyzes and compares the scope of corporate criminal liability across different legal traditions. It evaluates core theories attributing criminal blame, including vicarious liability, the identification doctrine, and organizational fault, in order to assess their effectiveness internationally. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative approach, the study examines legal frameworks in the US, UK, and Nigeria. It considers primary sources such as statutory laws and judicial precedents establishing a corporation's ‘directing mind and will,’ alongside relevant secondary sources. The analysis reveals significant divergence among jurisdictions. The US broadly applies vicarious liability, easing prosecution for employee misconduct, while the UK and Nigeria rely on the restrictive identification doctrine requiring proof of mens rea. The study concludes on the note that this traditional model is outdated and ineffective against modern multinational corporations. Legal reforms embracing organizational fault and corporate culture are necessary to ensure accountability and prevent exploitation of cross-border legal gaps.