For a corporation to be held criminally liable for the acts of an employee, the prosecutor does not have to prove:

a. that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment

b. the employee was acting with the purpose of benefiting the corporation

c. the act was imputed to the corporation

d. the act is not punishable only by prison time

e. that the employee was receiving a benefit from the criminal act

Question

Law

Hudson Melton

24 November, 12:16

For a corporation to be held criminally liable for the acts of an employee, the prosecutor does not have to prove:

a. that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment

b. the employee was acting with the purpose of benefiting the corporation

c. the act was imputed to the corporation

d. the act is not punishable only by prison time

e. that the employee was receiving a benefit from the criminal act

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Caleb Barrera · Answer 1

For a corporation to be held criminally liable for the acts of an employee, the prosecutor does not have to prove that the employee was receiving a benefit from the criminal act.

Option e

Explanation:

An entity that exists only through its employees and their functions is called as an corporation. Although, a corporation may be held liable for various criminal activities, for example: the employee did that criminal act in the scope of employment, the failure in performing an affirmative duty.

Corporations must perform certain responsibilities and duties to which they are bound to, if unable to perform those duties, it may result in criminal liability. However, a criminally liable company's prosecutor does not have to prove that the "employee was trying to receive some benefit from the criminal act".