Corporate liability To incur liability for a
crime, a person must have both committed a prohibited act (the
actus reus, which must be willed: see
automatism) and have had an appropriate mental element (the
mens rea) at the relevant time (see the technical requirement for
concurrence). A key component of the
mens rea is any
knowledge that the alleged criminal might have had. For these purposes, knowledge can be both actual and constructive—i.e., the
court can impute knowledge where appropriate. There is no ambiguity when the alleged criminal actually intended to cause the particular harm. Things are more difficult when the
defendant denies actual knowledge. When evaluating behavior, the legal process assumes the defendant was aware of their immediate physical surroundings and understood practical cause and effect. A
mens rea is imputed when a person with reasonable foresight in the same circumstances would have foreseen that the
actus reus would occur. This prevents a person from raising a defence based on willful blindness (note that in the
United States,
wilful blindness has a slightly different meaning). A problem arises when the defendant is a
corporation. By its nature, a
fictitious person can only act through the human agency of the
natural persons that it employs. Equally, it has no mind to constitute the
mens rea. Hence, the notion of
vicarious liability for
companies and other business entities exclusively depends on the ability to impute knowledge. The test is one of identification. If the natural person who acts can be "identified with the mind of the company" when performing the actions forming the
actus reus, all the relevant mental elements will be imputed to the company. This test, sometimes termed the
alter ego test, is objective and cannot be distracted by the job title or description formally held by the human agent. This prevents evasion of liability by the simple expedient of naming the real director of affairs as the janitor. However, not all actions trigger this transference. When acting, the human agent identified as the mind must be promoting the company's interests in some practical way. If they are engaged in an entirely personal activity—e.g., attacking a fellow employee out of anger or stealing from the company—the courts do not impute the relevant
mens rea to the company. In the
United States, the courts use a three-pronged test to determine whether a corporation is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees: • The employee must have acted within the scope of employment. • The employee must have acted, at least partly, to benefit the corporation. • It must be reasonable to impute the employee's acts and intentions to the corporation.
Joint principals A standard example of imputation arises through the principle of
joint endeavour. Where two or more people embark on a joint exercise, they are equally liable for everything that happens during the execution of their plan. For this purpose, joint principals are treated as knowing everything that happens, whether they were present or not. The requisite
mens rea formed by one is imputed to the others to enable a conviction. For example, suppose that a gang conspire to rob a bank. One remains outside in the car to ensure a quick escape. If the others kill a guard inside the bank, the driver is jointly liable for the homicide. ==Agency==