Author(s)

Kingsley O. Mrabure^1*, Alfred Abhulimhen-Iyoha²

¹Faculty of Law, Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria.
²Edo State Judiciary, High Court Complex, Benin, Nigeria.

This paper attempts a comparative analysis of corporate criminal liability in Nigeria, the United Kingdom, the United States and India. Candidly, it is trite that the law clothes a company with personality such that its rights and duties are distinct from those of its members, because a company is a legitimate entity. Under common law, companies are responsible for criminal offences subject to certain exceptions such as robbery, kidnapping, murder and rape. No mental state was required in this regard and the punishment that was then practicable was a fine that could simply be levied on a corporation. Presently, in offences involving proof of mens rea, companies will effectively be held liable by imputing the state of mind of employees and the directors who are the alter ego and directing minds of the corporation. While this is the position in Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the United States. India, however, is not in pace with the developments as well as they do not make corporations criminally liable and if or when they do, no other punishment is imposed on them except fine. The paper concludes by stating unequivocally that Nigeria should hold on to the alter ego doctrine due to its clarity and predictability but it should infuse the aggregation theory (collective knowledge) developed in the United States because that makes it easier for the prosecution of companies as against the single lane approach (the alter ego doctrine) which requires that companies should take responsibility for the persons having decision making authority for the policy of the corporation rather than the persons implementing such policies.

Corporate Criminal Liability, Alter Ego, Punishment, Respondeat Superior, Legal Responsibility

Mrabure, K. and Abhulimhen-Iyoha, A. (2020) A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Criminal Liability in Nigeria and Other Jurisdictions. Beijing Law Review, 11, 429-443. doi: 10.4236/blr.2020.112027.