守望先锋设置
换手机怎么把通讯录导入新手机箍牙多少钱>去伪存真Moull Brothers案美剧英文 枸杞怎么吃效果好 |
|
ABSTRACT: 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 tho of its members, becau 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. Prently, 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 impod 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 infu the aggregati
芝麻怎么吃
日月潭传说on theory (collective knowledge) developed in the United States becau that makes it easier for the procution 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.
