The Relevance of Agency Theory in Imposing Criminal Liability

4470 Words18 Pages
Introduction: The concept of Corporate Criminal Liability has been developed as Courts struggled to overcome the problem of assigning blames of criminal nature to fictional corporate legal entities based on moral responsibility. Common law principles are said to govern the corporate criminal liability instances unless otherwise the terms of the statute involved specifically provide to the contrary. Courts at an earlier stage started to give decisions on the basis of Civil Laws based upon Doctrine of Respondent Superior and gradually even criminal law was applied in cases with corporate defendants. This practice followed by judges, however raises a question that liability cannot be imposed upon a corporate entity as it does not acting on its own. Its employees, directors, agents etc. work on behalf of company. Further for our better understanding we must know what’s an agency? Agency is a comprehensive word which is used to describe the relationship where one person is employed by another in order to bring the latter into legal relations with third person. The Indian Contract Act does not define ‘Agency’ but it defines an agent as a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third person. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented is called the principal (section 182). It is therefore nothing but a delegation of authority from a principal to its agent. Similarly, in the context of a corporation, the principal engage an agent to perform tasks requiring the agent to make decisions on his behalf. In the business world, the main agency relationships concern shareholders and managers or debt holders and stockholders. But it often appears that the principal and his agents have divergent interests leading to a conflict between them. This conflict of interests is commonly known as the agency problem. Corporate
Open Document