Corporate Culture As Means Of Proving Mens Rea In Corporate Criminal Liability Under Malaysian Anti-Corruption Law

Hasani Mohd Ali, Muhamad Helmi Md Said, Siti Zakiah Binti Che Man

Abstract


The fight against corruption is a national and international primary concern for lawmakers and enforcement officials. Corporate criminal liability is an aberration of imputing criminal responsibility on a corporation against a natural person, which requires a combined effect of the actus reus and mens rea. A corporation incapable of committing a crime imputes corporate mens rea through its directors, senior managers or officers that constitute executive powers. In doing so, Malaysia uses the identification doctrine to impute mens rea. This article evaluated the most effective technique of establishing mens rea in dealing with modern corporate criminal responsibility. It used a doctrinal library- based research method to review pertinent corporate criminal liability literature, cases and legislations. The journal articles, cases and legislations were collected and analysed according to the themes to achieve the research objective. It was discovered that Malaysia still uses identification doctrine to prove corporate mens rea, making it difficult and near impossible to find large and multinational corporations liable since the directing mind and will are not actively involved in the corporations’ day-to-day operations. However, intention can still be imputed on the corporation based on its corporate culture. Hence, for section 17A of the MACC Act 2009 (2018 amendment) on bribery to be effective, there is a need for a shift from the use of identification doctrine in proving mens rea to corporate culture as that would balance the discrimination and unfairness of the identification doctrine and make it easier for large and multinational corporations to be charged with corporate criminal liability.


Keywords


corporate criminal liability; large and multinational corporations; mens rea; corruption; corporations; terrorism

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akanbi, K.O. 2014. The legal framework for corporate liability for homicide: The experience in Nigeria and the United Kingdom. IIUM Law Journal 22(1): 115-136. https: //doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v22i1.118.

Bribe payers index 2011. Transparency International, November 2, 2011, https: //www.transparency.org/en/publications/bribe-payers-index-2011.

Capuano, A. 2010. Catching the Leprechaun: company liability and the case for a benefit test in organic attribution, Aust Jnl of Corp Law 24(2): 177-206.

Chin Jone Yueh, Sujata Balan & Tay Pek San. 2019. Corporate Mens Rea in Malaysia and its potential for conceptual development. MLJ 2: 1 – 15.

Clough, J. & Mulhern, C. 2002. The Prosecution of Corporations. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Consumer Protection Act 1999 (Act 599).

Corporate Criminal Liability. Spotlight on Corruption. http: //spotlightcorruption.org/better-laws/corporate-liability/ [1 May 2023].

Criminal Officers’ Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorney-General, Final Report: Chapter 2- general principle of criminal responsibility (December 1992) 104 – 108 (Final Report).

David, O. 2011. Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law. 13th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

DPP v Kent and Sussex Contractor Ltd (1944) KB 146.

Dunlop Malaysian Industries Bhd v Public Prosecutor (1985) 1 MLJ 313.

Eriksson, F., Kirya, M. & Stridsman, M. 2014. OECD public consultation on liability of legal persons submission by U4 Anti-corruption Resource Centre. http: //www.u4.no.

Farah Farahani. 2019. Inconsistent approach of doctrine in corporate criminal liability. Academia.edu. https: //www.academia.edu/9974661/inconsistent_approach_of_doctrine_in_corporate_criminal.

Friedman, M. 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine. September 13.

Global Economic Crime and Fraud Survey: Malaysian Report. 2018. PwC. https: //www.pwc.com/my.

Gobert, J. 1994. Corporate criminal liability: Four models of fault. Legal Stud. 14 (1994): 401, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.1994.tb00510.x.

Gutman, J. & Lucas, V. 2018. Private – sector corruption: Measurement and cultural origins. Soc Indic Res 138: 747 – 770. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1684-3.

Hasani Mohd Ali. 2008. A review of corporate criminal liability in Malaysia. ICCLR 19(6): 192 – 199.

Hasani Mohd Ali. 2009. Corporate killing for malaysia: A preliminary consideration. JUUM 13: 145 – 157.

Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank. World Bank, 1997, https: //www.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/corruptn/corruptn.pdf.

Henning, P.J. 2007. The organizational guidelines: R. I. P? Yale L.J. 116(Pocket Part 312).

Hill, J. 2011. Corporate criminal liability in Australia: An evolving corporate governance technique? Journal of Business Law 1(1):. https: //www.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.429220.

In re Helenic, Inc., (5th Cir. 2001) 252 F. 3d 395.

J. J. Child, J.J. & Hunt, A. 2022. Beyond the present-fault paradigm: Expanding mens rea definitions in the general part. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 42(2): 438-467. https: //doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqab033.

Kumpulan Wang Persaraan (Inc) v Meridian Asset Management Sdn Bhd [2012] 1 LNS 316.

Learnard’s Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd (1915) AC 105.

LeBaron, G. & Ruhmkorf, A. 2017. Steering CSR through home state regulation: A comparison of the impact of the UK Bribery Act and Modern Slavery Act on global supply chain governance. Global Policy 8(3): 15-28. https: //doi.org.10.1111/1758-5899.12398.

Li, J. & Harrison, J.R. 2008. Corporate governance and national culture: A multi-country study. Corporate Governance 8(5: 607-621. https: //doi.org/10.1108/14720700810913278.

Lim Kheng Kooi v R [1957] MLJ at page 199.

Liu Xiaoding. 2019. Corruption culture and corporate misconduct. Journal of Financial Economics 122(2): 307-327, https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.06.005.

Lync, G.E. 1997. The role of criminal law in policing corporate misconduct. Law & Contemp. Probs 60: 23 – 39. https: //doi.org/10.2307/1192003.

Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 [Act 694].

Mayer, B., Roomen, T.V. & Sikkema, E. 2014. Corporate criminal liability for corruption offences and the due diligence defence. A comparism of the Dutch and English legal framework. Utrech Law Review 10(3): 37. https: //doi.org/10.18352/ulr.283.

Mendelsohn, M.F. (ed). 2018. The Anti-Bribery and Anti-Corruption Review. 7th edn. London: Law Business Research Ltd.

Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Security Commission (1995) 2 AC 500.

Meyer, B., Roomen, T.V. & Sikkema, E. 2014. Corporate criminal liability for corruption offences and the due diligence defence. A comparison of the Dutch and English legal frameworks. Utrecht Law Review 10(3): 37-54. https: //doi.org/10.18352/ulr.283.

Nanda, V. 2011. Corporate criminal liability in the United States: Is a new approach warranted? In Pieth, M. & Ivory, R. (eds). Corporate Criminal Liability. P62. London: Springer.

New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company v. United States, (1909) 212 U. S. 481.

Nur Hazirah Zainudin & Wan Mohd Zulhafiz Wan Zahari. 2018. Whistleblowing: A Western and Shari’ah perspective. IIUM Law Journal 26(1): 99. https: //doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v26i1.362.

Nur Yusliana Yusoff & Rusni Hassan. 2022. Corporate criminal liability in Islamic Banks in Malaysia. IJLF 14(2): 363-375. https: //doi.org/10.1108/IJLF-04-2021-0067.

Oh, E. 2019. New bribery legislation arrives in Malaysia. ACCA Think ahead. January 2. https: //www.accaglobal.com/in/en/member/member/accounting-business/2019/02/insights/bribery-legislation.html.

Organizations Receiving Fines or Restitution. 2010. Sourcebook for Federal Sentencing Statistics, U.S Sentencing Commission. https: //www.ussc.gov/dara_and_statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/Table51.pdf.

Osemek, N. & Osemeke, L. 2017. The effect of culture on corporate governance practices in Nigeria. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 14(4): 318-340. https: //doi.org/10.1057/s41310-017-0028-5.

Pacelli, J. 2019. Corporate culture and analyst catering. Journal of Accounting and Economics 67: 120-143. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2018.08.017.

Pendakwa Raya v Intrakota Consolidated Bhd (1999) MLJU 220.

Pieth, M. 2006. Article 2 – The Responsibility of Legal Persons. In Pieth, M., Low, L. & Cullen, P. The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary. P 9. Cambridge University Press.

Pieth, M. and Radha Ivory. 2011. "Emergence and convergence: Corporate criminal liability principles in overview. In Corporate Criminal Liability: Emergence, Convergence, and Risk ed. Mark Pieth and Radha Ivory (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011), 3–60.

Public Prosecution v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No. 2) [1997] 1MLJ at page 22.

Public Prosecutor v Ginder Singh & Chet Singh (1948) 1 MLJ 194b.

Qingxiu Bu. 2018. The culture variable vis – a – vis anti-bribery law: A grey area in transnational corporate criminal liability. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 19: 183-213. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40804-017-0089-8.

R v Chargot Limited (t/a Contract Services) and other (2009) 2 All ER 645.

R v P & O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd (1991) 93 Cr App R 72.

Ramirez, M. 2005. The science fiction of corporate criminal liability: Containing the machine through the corporate death penalty. Arizona Law Review 47 940.

Rini Agarwal. 2016. Corporate liability: UK Bribery Act – legal overview. STA Law Firm. https: //www.stalawfirm.com/en/blogs/view/corporate-liability-uk-bribery-act.html.

Robinson, A.A. 2008. ‘Corporate culture’ as a basis for the criminal liability of corporations. United Nations Special Representatives of the Secretary – General on Human Rights and Business, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre.

Robinson, P.H. 1999. Mens Rea. Nelico Legal Scholarly Repository: 8-19.

Rose, C. 2016. The UK Bribery Act 2010 and accompanying guidance: Belated implementation of the OECD Anti-bribery Convention. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 16: 485-499. https: //doi.org/10.1017/S002058931200036.

Rusni Hassan & Aishath Muneeza. 2022. The need to eliminate mismanagement and corruption in Islamic social finance institutions. IIUM Law Journal 30(S2): 423-444. https: //doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v30iS2.774.

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22.

Sarre, R. 2007. White-collar crime and prosecution for ‘industrial manslaughter’ as a means to reduce workplace deaths. In Pontell, H.N. & Geis, G. (eds). International Handbook of White-collar and Corporate Crime. New York: Springer.

Schwartz, M.S. 2013. Developing and sustaining an ethical corporate culture: The core elements. Business Horizons 56: 39-50. https: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.002.

Securities Commission Act 1993 (Act 498).

Serious Fraud Office (SFO) v Standard Bank PLC case No: U20150845. https: //www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sfo-v-standard-bank_preliminary_1.pdf.

Simons, K.W. 2017. Can strict criminal liability for responsible corporate officer be justified by the duty to use extraordinary care? Crim Law and Philos 12: 439. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11572-017-9431-z.

Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4SCC 530.

Stark, F. 2013. It’s only words: Meaning and mens rea. Cambridge University Press 72(1): 155-177. https: //doi.org/10.1017/S0008197313000056.

Teka, R.D. & Donaldson, R. 2017. Corporate liability for economic crime: Submission from Transparency International UK. Transparency International UK. https: //www.transparency.org.uk/.

Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1971) 2 All ER 127.

Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass (1971) 2 All ER 127, 135.

The Bell Group Ltd (in Liq) v Westpac Banking Corporation (no 9) (2008) WASC 239.

United States v Bank of New England (1st Cir. 1987) 820 F 2d 844.

United States v Cincotta (1st Cir 1982) 689 F 2d 238 at 241.

United States v Richmond (8th Cir 1993) 700 F 2d 1183.

United States v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., (1985) 770 F. 2d 399.

Unites States v. Blood (6th Cir. 2001) 435 F. 3d 612.

Weissmann, A., Zeigler, R., Mcloughlin, L. & Mcfadden, J. 2008. Reforming corporate criminal liability to promote responsible corporate behavior. The US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. http: //www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/WeissmannPaper.pdf

Wong, K. 2012. Breaking the Cycle: The Development of Corporate Criminal Liability. LLB Thesis, University of Otago.

Wyk, V. & Weiss, B. 2019. Validity of the Corporate Ethical Virtue (CEV) model in a South African study context: A case study. African Journal of Business Ethic 13(1): 12 – 36. https: //doi.org/10.15249/13-1-203.

Yap Sing Hock & Anor v Public Prosecutor (1992) 2 MLJ 714.

Yeo, S., Morgan, N. & Chan Wing Cheong. 2002. Criminal Law in Malaysia and Singapore. 2nd edn. Kuala Lumpur: Lexis Nexis.

Yue Chi Kin v PP [2019] 1 LNS 1874.

Yue Sang Cheong Sdn Bhd v Public Prosecutor (1973) 2 MLJ 77.

Zurich Insurance Malaysia Bhd v AM Trustee Bhd & Anor; Meridian Asset Management Sdn Bhd (Third Party) and Anor (2014) 1 CLJ 397.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.