Corporate criminal liability: Difference between revisions
(→New York Central: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-v-hilton-hotels-corp) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Critics of the current paradigm of the American legal system holding corporations criminally liable say it is "ipse dixit" meaning because the US courts have said so. | Critics of the current paradigm of the American legal system holding corporations criminally liable say it is "ipse dixit" meaning because the US courts have said so. | ||
=== Hilton Hotels 1972=== | |||
''United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp.'' (1972) established that a corporation may be held liable even when a rogue employee violates company policy.<ref>https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-v-hilton-hotels-corp</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{Reflist}} | {{Reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 15:24, May 30, 2022
Corporate criminal liability is a subject of United States law where it is ruled that a corporation is a legal entity that may be held criminally liable.
History
New York Central
The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 set price controls for railroad companies. A railroad company (New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co.) was criminally convicted and fined for $108,000 for lowering its shipping prices for one of its commercial clients through a rebate scheme which violated the price control. The landmark Supreme Court case New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States (1909) set the precedent for holding a corporation criminally liable.[1] The railroad company argued that convicting the corporation would harm the shareholders who couldn't defend themselves. The Court ruled that the respondeat superior doctrine from tort law should apply to criminal law.
Critics of the current paradigm of the American legal system holding corporations criminally liable say it is "ipse dixit" meaning because the US courts have said so.
Hilton Hotels 1972
United States v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (1972) established that a corporation may be held liable even when a rogue employee violates company policy.[2]
