Contents 1 ttn eae 1 pent Gin vad Que) a 21 net gon ™ £22 unm focal Qin a 1.3 Sas nd oti Mir ey S51 Seton ey {32 Ses is i 343 Somer as 3 Pact ii dt Cen oe Idee 21 8.1 Introduetion In general terms, German law recognizes comorate Dabiity as tonstauence of legal personality contrat and tort lw provide that corp {ations are lable for the wrongdoing oftheir representatives or export, fa special sonepts of cil ability Ce, produ bits) cm reat traf, a rman 48 31, 27% 91 Mtn Geach Ider Rann der, hatching, sv dom S08 Ge tthe tern frm on Say 2 ‘fae SentceDse er 201 dthe inbilty of corporations ax well? A form of corporate laity ca ho he found in German administrative la fo expe, in provisions dealing ‘ith the protectin of the environment Dy contrast, the German Penal Code ds not provide for the imposi- ‘on of criminal sanctions on corporations ln defn the coe in 1970, the German legislator adhred toa notion of personal ie hat cod nok be applied to corporations, following the ancient rl, sccta dling ‘om potest ited eral Kinbltyto natal persone The provisions ‘on forfeiture and conscation are nonethekss apliabl colegal ene, ‘Acoriing to 75 Penal Code, assets of «corporation ean be confiscated ‘nstrumenta ce produc seer Whe pensar sonst the vie ‘6 lal representative ofthe compaction, Ite eorporation has bn ted rom a crime committed by ne of ie sepresentatives, the cout My ‘ner the Forfar ofthe hone” ‘The provisions on forfeiture do not establish te criminal esponsibility ‘of eorporations under German law, however, sine folie cant ot be ‘garded as a criminal sation trict sensu: as forte ts supposed fnaure thatthe corporation i deprived of any ict profit and oes not tenet fom the offense, 1s not deneraly regard a uring personal ‘ule? The same applies to the camfisation of objects that eng the funeral publ or that may be used forthe commission uf walk act sinoe such confscations are solely preventive” deci 384,20 20176, Se War 20 a8 ‘Rion Fy 12 eos Nemahtate Hen Ruom ge inane oat eae i ithe cst Par Aa Ge stray Came et Ponta le a ae ‘ules dane pe nw at 198, Yo es 5574 Stem i rong er aeons an 1. Ne 08 ‘Renmin ms ar a Se Ranta eel Cohn Ct Ge 10 16 The confiscation of other objets ie aot merely preventative urpose but is als Intended to punish the lfender Consequently the confiscation of those objects cannot be ondered without galt!= In ‘ha regard, the confucaton te a qua-eriminal sanction (atratliche ‘Matinalie) In the view of the legator, corporations shoul! mot be ek pte fom suc eonnction orders (a dh pts ae) er the berpetrator commited the erat on bell of te corporation, confine fiom may be ordered on similar condions a apy to matral person the perpetrator him- herself Thos, one col say that German ei tal ew prvi forthe crialinbliy of corporations under 8 15 Peal Conde etcept forthe ttt confiscation not crise a nthe place ofcriminal sanctions, the German legato provi ain surat pele or corporations This form of soporte rspotlty Was into gradually over the course of the wenteth eet Mb ‘espomse to the Concer abuut the owing economic ifence Teh persons In 1929, a German court fled that, competition la! re sir ie Onder) me be immed on rerio alg fm human beings The decison nape legilation expres pron for regulatory Hes afainst corporations” In 1949, the leat repel the regulatory (ermal fine wih a ainsteative fine ant leh pre ‘ons out af deference to the tational jection co worpate ria Tabi. To implement his, he leslator adopted a general provision on ‘corporate fines (Verbundsgeldbuse) inthe Ordmungncrihevenseate sone a es iat ‘hn cad on Sta a eminence ann eacange rts Nana ana ss ei in lV td(Regulatory Orfenses ed) of 1968 (ROA). Aeconding to 8 30(2) ROA, ‘an administrative fine (Gelb) mayo imposed om legal person i an onan. a representative, or a person with fanetions of contd ‘wth the legal person as committed a eriminal or regulatory offense (Ondmngnetdrighet). The provision resolved the confit between the ‘who opposed corporate criminal responsibilty on doetial grounds snd ‘hoe who saw a practical nee! for corporate sanctions in responding propriate Yo corporate wrongioing In contrast oa criminal sentence, a ‘ministrative Be dee not imply moral imewrhiness, frtermore, {he corporate ine was deskned a “collateral consequenee” (Nebel) ofthe offense by a natural person. Therefore, the corporate ie wae not ‘onsidered incompatible with the concept of pers git? owever, atl seems dof that the leit compromie fas sddremed the doctial objections to corporate criminal respanalllty fofar a the corporate fine extalishes the hablo «corporation for the rimina aces ts representatives.» When removing the orga des ignation (Nebo) im the Second Acton Combating Bcoaors Cie (ZeevtesGesets eur Bekamyina der Wirtchafshriminalad™ the le Isator schnowleed dhe corporate fine ae enn patie sanction.» ‘though it didnot change its poston on erininaly sanctioning corer tons in 1999, the Federal Ministry of ste appoint 4 commisson ‘fexperts rom aeademia andthe afl profesion to examine the se ‘of criminal Habilty of legal persons. In ts fin epor, the commision ‘ejected the troduction of comperate criminal sly" Tn the lew of Inost commissioners, the administrative Bne ia § 30 ROA was slice, ‘speci sine Ie dd not requte the entiation of «natural person as hn 6h Orne, OW 26M 18 ary >See erandang des Hegerungentnies tes Gewtes ther Orloigouihi {tapanryMemrn othe r f h FtrelConroent oo ey Sic Hndaprkce Vt Sen mat aplenty rman i ore Wirschatkriminait (Eaptanatey Memory the Sei 8 0 RON {ehh eon ings) aks i the mmmacy of he Sal se it, en Atari enum Hn Saw etna) esos ‘ahr Sn pecpsrator: In aden, corporate criminality was deemed incompate {ihe with the concep a pero st and dhe principle mula pa tne ‘ul sinoe innocent people sch as shareholders, nny be fro to ster ‘he consequences ofthe otporate penal alongwith, or instead of, th per ons win were gly ofthe offense Finally the introduction of corporate ‘minal abe wouldve rue he commission's lew, toy {he troduction ofa new sytem of sbatantive criminal, bt ao aa ‘of new and diferent procedural rales: Despite the commissions ining, the dchate on corporate eimina laity in Germany ont ‘5.2 Responsibility of Corporations (Structural Questions) Corporate criminal respon, a provided for by 8.90 ROA allows dhe Impotaton model ste bit of te corporation ibs om the ima ‘ono of i leading persons, in particular, ts ga representaioen hy limiting he umber of persone whone ats (romans) oan he ate torte cvporation, as ducused frter below. the German approach fe= Semis the Mntistion theory developed in common lw rations ‘Sichae England ad Wales That sai, a corporate ine may be mined oe trhen the person who comittd the eflense cannot be ented, prove ‘hati entabhed dhat ope of the persons representing the corporation hae commited the offense urtheriore, under 8130 ROA, a corporate fie ean be imposed an ondinary employee hes comaited an offense on behalf ofthe eal prs tind a rapreaentative of the corporstion fae fled prevent or dincourage ‘he commission ofthat offense through proper supervision, In this sna, the responsiblity of the corporation bax nt on the eral cond the emploee baton the fale of he representative to comply with hisher tires since §101KOA salen that x typaly committed y rope: ‘Scatves of corporations It va provision upon which corporate Hat ‘om be aed Thus, according t some authors, lack of ofaniaation wih ‘Sperison (Orfnbtionacerschuldn) the main element of corporate ult tat lepimates a corporate sanction This doesnot change the fst, "adngeribtd Pera hg 2 pn 8that a corporate fine under § 30 ROA may be impose where there were ‘no defects n corporate orfaization or supervision’ But onéatztional ‘efiiences will be more important in determining dhe amount of the ‘orporte fine in Germany than in systems that aere to 8 “pure” a futiign model dhe dincusion on tantoning principles shows further emery 8.211 Scope of Application 82.11 Corporations ‘The corporate fine can be spose on lal persons: including the stock corporation (Aktingesellchy). the lied ability company (Geselechaft mit bescvankter Hafan), a the ineorporated sec tion (rechaiiger Tere) Acconing to prevailing acedemis opinion, 4°30 ROA abo aprlis to Iga persons ealshed under public lw (orperschjion des fentihn Rehes) = Purter, 8S) Nos 2 ad 53 ROA estends corporate criminal abilty to eater that not have {atl eg personaly, such a6 the non-icorporated amoctation (nicht rchtyahiger Verein), the sommerctal company (adelaenllsah), limited partnership. (Kommunudgenelich), profesional partnership (Parmerschftsgeselchaf), and company extabinhed inde the Cl (ode (2B-Gesellchaf). "A vorporite ine en alte inposed oncom ny rtistred in another state Hf the corporation hasan evant lal apacty tothe German lal persons Mented ia the B 30 ROA, and a *enuine link” eatabides Gorman juriditon* 'As the catalogue of ertanizations fa 8 30(1) shows, § 30 i mite In scope to corporations that enjoy at st parti log capacity sn 9 et ie dressed ents that ae separate fom their human repent: tives The eisltor apparently soaght to avoid a confot wih the principle ‘of nulla poona sine culpa (30 panistmentsithout lt) snot, nthe Schirer 200%, para. 2: Fleter 2008, 80 prs 3: we Roll 206, paras 92 sao thes ora oat ema oe es see, e859 Rredweengests mdr Fonumg er ekanotmachung vom 9, scr th ia th fone 9 ‘erase tier Roa oa a), 3820, Rega 28 case of sole trading enterprise, the imputation model would amount 4 ‘seaishing criminal responsibly of «natal person (he owner of the “trprise) ex nuda fr erin responsi for ats come by ‘mother person). 822 Offenses 1m genera, 8 0 ROA applies to al kinds of crimes and eulatonyofleios (Ortnungteurighesten), inlading economic fens such athe {ablshment of eal tts” and environmental crimes a corporation ‘ay even be held late for Homiede However, the responsibilty of the corporation prsupposes that the perpetrator representative reba ‘ne of the corporation’ etl ablations or thatthe corporation se ticked or shold have been cariche) by the oleae. These conn Sreatermatives thin, Hs not neces to show hat the corporation V- lated it obligationsf ne ofthe other conditions (enrichment or tee srchinen) met. ’) corporation’ lal obligations derive from the las eglating a tort Por instance, produver of gods i ole to remove poset from the marke the product can cause harm to conser. a > ployer must comply with workplace safety standard o protect the health ft hisher employes and an operator of omer stations must comply ‘ith environmental standards mspowed by low 8 30 ROA has partie Tir appication to fens that may only be comand by a spo lass sl perpetrator (Sonderdcikt) to which the corporation alse belongs. 1 this way a fine may be imposed ona corporacion as an employe (for ‘wthholing of was or tala! or nun agent or 4 Breach of tn) tuandestauracinae EW, ‘etn pled i 1,20) Inge se ee ha ag Mera 80 RIA, ur 218 arte 200, pr 3 a a aban) Maran 30 HOA. "el son herp eign nae on ‘ey ta Role. eh Hl 08 par. 74 28,5.2.2 Imputation (Structural Questions) 52.21 The Representatives of the Corporation Corporate responsiblity supposes acinar riulatry olen was eo ‘ited by «person representing the corporation. 8.30 ROA define the class ‘tpersons who engage corporate responsi ‘+ the governing body of ale person ora member of such a body (8 30(1) No. TRON). ‘the president of an unincorporated auccaton of a member of the ‘xesitve board of sacha asotation (8 3041) No. 2 ROA) tpuricy cfs company authored to represent the company (5 34(1) Ko. RO) a authorized representative wit fall power of attorney oF a general ‘wnt or authorized representative a management potion witha com: meri power of attorney (with respect to lal persons, asocatons oF Companies) (8 30(1) No.4 ROA snd «+ other persons sespnsibie forthe management ofa business ently or an ‘terre of legal person, assciaton or compan, inluding persons in charge of tapering the management or other take invahing the ‘xereia of conta nan executive potion (8301) No, $ ROA), ‘0,830 ROA does not restr dhe cas of persons who may engage cor porate respon to thie who could be omaidered the nesting mad” fr the “sonlor manager" of an orfanization, to he contrary. 8 3001) No. 5 inches manag cers ata lower level Tis provision was opted, in 2002" co implement the Second Protoool tothe Convention om the Protection of the European Communities’ Fnanca laters of une 19, 1957. howordngly, corporate Ibllty ca he based on the conduct of leading company eficers authorized to exercie contol within the or poration, sch a persons respoible for internal Snancial control ad Suliing or members of « coneuling or supervisory body (Aufiheara). Alms Daten Pace Oberon men St de ‘nso erm de eps rete hag St ss a Pan te aye ete “Sarde 20, para, grange Pata es Cates ‘rete Thtechor i peWatonBebor N22. Dewar Nv eo Some by extending § 30 (2) No, Stal persons responsible forthe management the corporation busine or enterprite, he kalo wished to ensure that lending persons were cnught bythe provision trespective thet formal "tus within the corporation adn prea, ha compotion coal Wo ‘ade corporate abit by onanzationl measures" Further, singe the lick of superior Hel «eelaory offense? “nporte” criminal responablty may be base (niet) om a ok fense ofan cmplyge who te not eovered by 8 30 (1) ROA but who cok Ihave prevented of hindered te commision ofthe offense chrough prope superision, 5.2.2.2 The (Criminal oF Regulatory) Offense by the Representa |As mentioned above, the iminal Kabity of «corporation presupposes thot eriminal or regulatory offense was commited by a represents ‘ofthe corporation. Toh 8 30 (1) KOA dows not requis the gonviton ‘tha natural person, in prisipe, cho corporate fine tinned With the framework ofthe (rina or administrative) procedings gana he fatwa porsn, However If the competent authors donot Insti ‘sporti maybe fined in separate proce forte fine many be impo even if the human perpetrator cou Wot be “isn, provid thai setae that one of he representa he corporation mantloned in § 30 (1) ROA committed dhe ofense See a Sena se eee Teen rn ee dwar orton i tthe Smee er Ct a, NM Wr 20 pr5.22.3 lmputation Criteria (Interest and Obligations ‘ofthe Corporation) ‘The corporation isnot responsible for jst any of ls representatives of fensess conten for patton x specs link betwee the of ad the orporation. In particu, 8 30 ROA requires that the person repent Ing the corporation infringed legal obligation on the corporation or that the corporation was enriched (or ws spposed to have been) enriched by the commision of the offense. There requirements are aieratves, ie the offense may be impute to the eorporation by relerence to the terest {enrichment of ttendal enrichment) r by reference to the oblitions of the corporation “Thee criteria apply in the sameway tothe question of whether the h ‘man perptrator acted "as" 2 corporate repreentatieIn commiting the ‘offense. According to prealing opinion, the perpetrator must have com Imitted the erie tn exerising hier Functions and competenoe a4 = native ofthe corporation (the soled "functional approach) and hier capacity ara pent person Asatte peron at a representative if hehe breaches obligations of the corporation in comnit tinge offense This functional ink i ot nescneary ifthe perpetrator ‘commits the crime in order to enrich the corporation” ‘Some scholars hold the view that the porptritor mst have cost: sn the Interest of the comporton (the svcd "intrest theory") Hewever, this nota convincing argument ‘vith regard to meget inkingements of the corporations obligations that ‘re commited inthe Interests neither ofthe perpetrator oto the cor foration” Therefore, corporate lability shoud only be cached wh the representative wae golly pursuing hivher ow (private) terest 1 ‘ommiting the lls,” parler if le waa ating contrary tothe orporation’ interest Is submited that § 30 ROA clearly shows that both facts ~ corporate interest (enrichment) and the obigatons uf the ‘Seu ahve 0 99 fo Belmatony Manerandom t § 0 ROS, kr ‘headgear Ree, CA) whee 381) rr Fern Cte ea Gs, atk, in 298, 1 kr Se 200%, pr 27; Nl 2 pr 9, Srnder 09,26 Rll 20, pars 9 corporation and thee violation — ae capable of tgering corporate te ‘pons. Thus, corporate hblty may be Based on the veto of » ‘Sonporatens dtc even the perpetrator acted contrary tothe corporate 8.3 Sanctions and Sanctioning Principles a 1 Sanctions ‘59141 Financial Sanctions The main sant for corporations ste adminsteaive ie, the lle under § 30 KOA. The fine shall anount co no more chan EX lion fo" a8 Intentional rime and no more than ¢S00 00 for anfense of nega ‘hs to mfeltery frees, the rection amount of the corepeedaat lense provision apples Ide regulatory lense ds no ileal tween intentional and noghgent conduct che amount ofthe fine ft le gent conduce mst no exceed hal ofthe maximum prove in thee ‘Accodinto the hind sentence of 3042) ROA, the conduct tbe to the corporation fll the criteria of both eraial anda toulatory of fense the highest maximum amount apples. This provision was apd 10 ‘kcal with improper agreement orethit competition in rape tN {atone to tno Such agreements ee crminaloed under 298 Penal Coe “nd they are alo covered by the sencralreuatoryeflense in 8 ICH) Neb Sind (2) No.1 Act agains Restraints on Competition (ARC) Acconding [S181 seoond sentence, No. LARC, the fie aut an enterpia A ‘ssotation of enterprises” may excel the feneral maximum su ‘Clon butte copped at 10% ofthe corporation’ total turnover for the preveding business year The provision fll the sanctioning scheme of ‘Are 2812), sevod sentence, Cou Regulation (EC) No, W200 I has ose aha ee temas ea nea siertrrecpaameaeacneIon subject to betsy crt with regard to the principle mala poena sin lage inc dows not ia aol masini fo he Bn." Furtherinore, the maximum amount of dhe ie may inerease aking nto sccount the let profits of the corporation. Sige the ne must exceed the benefits the corporation has obtained hy commiting the offense, Iny be necessary to inp fine yond the eae iit By depriving {he sorporation of ils probs, the Be abuors the function of fof fre consequently frkitare may at be ordered ithe eeroration has lrcady oem ined Ths, th eapect co dhe corporate fine, free fe ‘Ssutlry sanction.” By contrast, with gar to competition ofnses,” ‘the impition of fine dos not preude an ordr af friiture™ or the ‘sng colt prt in admintative ee "The fork of et profs is suppose to ensure that dhe company des ot huni from ther lenses not a punive sanction and ows ‘ot requite personal gil Thus, the conditions of corporate Habit for fovfare tr rlaton to cinta fener and regaltory ofensee™ are Tear sti han done in 830 ROA. An order a fret may be dete st ‘corporation ithe perpetrator acted “for” the eosporaton and the Inter ‘toque something tneteby™ On the batter view the freee provision ‘es aot demand thats lfener represented the corporation within the mening 0(1) ROA risus tat 4 natal person (even lowe Fankingemployeeo third part) acted in dhe de act o de jure interests of the corporation Tha sa some authors are tat ony aflendrs within ‘he "eer (of knflance) of the corporation (in particu, employees) tay trier the provision.” 2" EMC Se he ing 8 Ah 0 gy Man ‘og 73 Rol Ce 4 spa nan (Once freture is ordered, extends to all objects and benoit and surrogate objects the corporation as obtained" if necessary the object ‘sn he replaced by an mount of money coresponding to Ws vale.” In ‘te of relator ofensen, the forte ofthe al is enerally required ($29a(1) ROA); however, force may not be ordered to the extent that 1 oi of erie or rgultory fnso™ has claimel compensation “The corporation’ cost and expentures in commiting the afene are nat eta from the val of the aogired sete sie the ss va > nr sujet to forfeiture (Brattoprietp).° Ae is snterpretaton has trensormed forcere fom means o deprive persons uf prs in ‘criminal sanction is submited thot the frfeitur of he fos vale Into be aubjet wo de same conditions asthe corporate fine” Im addtion to the provisions on freure.= 834 ARC est ‘competence of the court pablo lw, o depeve comp Profits n contrast wo fins o forcture orders dhe depevation of ite Profits canbe enforce by private parte A sila proton conta {ng 10 ofthe Ac against Ualr Competition eset tegen den wnlauteren Weudexcerb) inal, «confiscation ofthe isramenta el product scelris s wort mentioning, Such confiscation oder can bv dest at corporation it tne of is reprenotatives has omaited » orime,™ the consdertion ‘mentioned wih ear to 80 RON aplsing accordingly. 8.2.1.2 Nomnanca Sanctions Neither the Penal Cade nor the ROA provides for non-financial corpo fate sonetions, such ox supervision order, prbelsn orders, Or onder fot ‘he appeinent of complaace monitors However incerta case, sae iar sh 2h pr 45 egal 20 tard ng aan a smn row 4} ls th a 418 Ci 929agencies may apt administrative measures to prevent ileal comet oF ‘Sto harm For stance the federal Pinal Service Authority may de and che dismissal of managers responsible for peristnt oltons of the Hanking Ast and oner the eompetences ofa compat’ overnin Day 2 lefal person can be dorgistred or dissolved if engage i egal conde tht endangers public welfare though these provision ares Ue wsed a oe amon ielevane™” Since 1945, ony one hited Uibity ‘company is Been dereisterel pursuant to these provisions and no sch ‘se has been reported with regard to stock corporations” The explana tom is the principle of proporonality in German ln; mich regute the ‘exeentive co impose the mildest remedy to adress he isk of fate eg ‘conduct the pation of fn redarded a suey effective” In general, German lw does not recognize exskons frm public con ting process atm corporate sanction. Nevertheless, ble contracts shall be awarded to reliable enterprises" Thorcoe, «corporation sould ‘be excluded from publi tenders i ts Mega conduct casts doubt oni ‘ellablty. "In adios corporation mire eel from pli one {tacts fone oft al epresenative has commited an offs related 10 legal employment The props of exchaton has a deterrent fect on ‘corporations However, the exclusion alfa consequence ofthe corport- on lak of elie thu, not erilnal suction bu a preventive ‘measure and dovs aot sequre 4 conviction 1 A imilry prevents te nitive for a federal register of corruption ofenae has nt et beet Spit i ts £8 ao (Unies ish Companies Ato Api 2,182, Ipertl Law Cant 192.477 edn el ab 300) Bergan S09 PS NTA Sica ei Stan re 1) 1 Serhhnpt 22004 (et Cong Me tenon ay 200, tangent Sn Ns} nan tec oe 2 Sma ts ye 3 0, ‘nai tn le enn pte but several tutes (Bundealander) have extablshed corruption Tegster, which bel ther tompcient sotoriGcs to ama tho flab It ofthe corporations tendering for contrat” In dhe state of Noth Rhine Westphain'™the offenses covered by the rete are: the cnr Jn of state ofits," money laundering fraud subi and tet finer the bron of trust! th conclusion of efrements Festi competition private corruption, and tax faa 8.3.2 Sanetioning Principles ‘The amount of the fine is detertinednosordng to the general Peels ‘hat appt the imposition ofan amiaistative ne keep with Functions, the fine composed of wo cements: punishment (the pune tlement and siphoning of of Metal profs (ihe prot element). Wah regard to the pratt element. the ie has dhe same futon af the forfetare onder however, cording to the prevaing view he to omic Benet ftrschaficher Voted) i called by deat sts i expenditoes from the prof that has bee earned By commiting the Sense net profit principle) (Netprincip)« Ww therefore ree > the acquired object and es value. The appleaion of the ruttoprinat Tynlouaeirane 70 sans Nat Noa 5, Nt {iAP Ok Hl 20 par Ta‘would imply paniive fmction which is ubject to the second element tte fine! Ifthe authority oe the cout cannot ascertain the procs ‘mount of egal profs, then the amount may he estimated Notably, ‘most commentators are nlso of the opinion that compensation claims mt Ie onsired in esposing es = Ast the punitive clement, the gravity of the offense he gui attach Ing tothe fender snd hier economic ituation are al tobe take it sccount' By extension, the nancial staaton of the corporation mist te considered = and, mportandy the fine shoold not be tach sto pat the existence of the corporation at risk" With regard to competition ‘less, the Be related to the anal turmoner of the corporation land the Federal Cartel Offce hae adopted fuldlins on the sting of fines that fallow the saotonig scheme ofthe European Commission the base amount of the fine ie cleulatd onthe hai ofthe inrngement- ‘elated tamover and neresed or decreed ith regard to artigo ‘mitigating factors and the deterrence fat Partha tine with the lg ofthe imputation moc, the dtermina- ‘ona the corporate ine depends onthe offers oft reptesertatie, ith ‘ogrdo rity fenses the same penalty level correapending ap piles The gravity of the offense depends, intr ali, om the portance ofthe protected eal Interest, the etree of damage or risk, the ston fof the offense the consequences ofthe offense, andthe manner of St er hh tien de dt er ‘hstnachng at om 5 Sepnmbr ,N3 "ogee ate 123 ass oh aera Cat fs, In principle dhe gull of the corporation i fase on the conduct of lec raprosnttive. Therefore seriou fra of deliberate intent td regienoe ae agravating faetors However dhe ga attaching 1 he poration diferent fom the persona ui the offender According tothe imputation model, the conde ofthe representative must Be cons ‘rasan emanation of the volecve wil of te corporation 8 he it wl he partly rest the oense was an expresso Of Bh “ral criminal atitade peevaling within the corporation By cont the fine wil be lower Hf the fess ofthe feesettv nt In with the company's general business policy Corresponding, lash "supervision wl ineease the gull ofthe corporation sinc the Fsp> "ity of the corporation St based, not nly on te flee ect ft alo om the re of leading persons to cary out tale sur fictions Tae same holds tre forthe concept of corporate ful tht ‘rcuses on onanizatlonal defelences" systemic disorganization ah ncgevatng facto" Por similar reasons, corporation ta pest infringe the la wil be snnctoned wth = higher fe beens fled to ndopt logue preventive measures as a consequetoe of is HO tonviston() ‘nthe other hand, an adequate compliance system should be cone eda mitipting factor became the organizational nyfictencte teu tha the corporations Ell ls ee This approach eo be contested en ths ws that gl, nthe imputation model seley based on the cont of ‘he representative; tha edad, the astiation of « eompiane Progra Isierkvant "However what ths argument docs not conse, that the ful ataching co the corporation depends onthe extent to which the ot- atom au whale ha nn teal igations- In er wot, eed "bers Woe 300 "pane! 30, ha ae a a 208, 472ppling the mputation model, the condi of representatives exerting thir dates mat be taken nto -acount."® Dy sting up a compliance Program, corporation expresses ss general wil wo prevent olfentes tl to comply wid its obiatlons under 8130 ROA. (eflcti¥e) compliance ‘roprams must therefore be consiered miiating ators ‘Oe general principle, post-ffence wont rey ako rel inthe mi lation ef the ne For instance, te payment af compensation to third tics for thee finan anos i cnetdoed a enitigating factor! ase the voluntary termination of the ileal conduct and cooperation with the ‘competent autor In particular, Sooperation in uncovering the of ‘enor cam lad to» rection ofthe fine or sven to Immunity tn cartel nal dhe ne must be high enough deter dhe corporation rm oo mtg acre afenses(Spestalpracenion)"° Unde the sublines of th Federal Cartel Ofc the amount ofthe fine can ths be ineresed With regard to a "dteront factor" That tal postffens conduct of the ‘orporatio intended to preven ts representatives rom commiting sh lav afenes, such athe intoduction or reven ef copie Progra, may doce che need for spite deterrence and, with tha, te potent Paty Pilly eon thet the court sbonld tek nie scooust any serous and inappropriate consequences, which the corporate fine might have for Ihrer, associates, o partners i the enterprise who dl at parti ‘te inthe ofense "Ar the same tm, It must ls be considered that Corpor ies alll preventive fancion by aking mach Inwabiling Sharellege,asociates, ad partners pli and change the corporations ‘behavior "tpt 8 8p gs 20% par 120, ‘Sef Procedural Issties SAL] Proseeutorial Discretion A corporation “ean” be fined for an lense commited by one of ‘tx roprsentadves!® Thug, 830 ROA incorporates the “opportanky principe” (Oppomuntasprinip)'S* by whic tho competent tty fis disretion whether or aot t Impose a corporate fine!" Rot rel: tory offer and their sanction (dhe admsratve fe), this divert ‘os fom the encel rae in §47 ROA. With regard tothe corporate ine tinder 830 RON, the discretion sal enable the wuthonty Wo tae “sunt the sanction impesed onthe natal persons acting bbl of the ‘orpration and to avoid disproportionate eet of cumulative sitions pune the corporation and its representative Howeter thi ete ‘in aioe aehleved by proper adjstncats to de dilerent fis ‘Since criminal offenses commited hy natural prone anit be pro ‘cuted In accordance with the legal principle (Legalctsprinap), 0 ‘nits are that there should be an equivalent obation ith regal {o'corporations that are respoouble for crimes!” Ast cosa ft pronecutorial discretion, they say, corporations ae rarely hel oF 2 Jurisdiction The ROA is limited to oflenser commited in German tertory!™ Therefore, German courts have no power to ne Geran corporations Ft ‘iene commited sro Based upon the "atve personal” pnp Furthermore, the principe of passive) personality’ does nat Inet Tol perms. even in rina law evening ian 119 peo pms soe teteranctsch sa hath i A Fl al Belt (ge ea84.3 Procedural Rights of the Corporation In principle, the sanction onthe natural person andthe corporate fine shall ‘he tmposed in one andthe same proceeding" However, no proceedings ssvian the nota person are tubal, tei those proceedings ore te ‘minted, the corporation may be fined independent proceedings I Stl ees, the lederal or rein catl ie rexclasvely competent Impose a corporate ing even ia ceil rater chan a egaatory) offense Ing been commited © Asa cosequenee, the corporation andthe nara povon ae proseted in eparae prceotings, ‘Acording to the Code of Cruminal Prove (CCF) dhe provisos om the lea statin ofa person whose sets shal be conical apy mar {ats mutandis toa sorporation thats e fined for serie he same ‘pps to corporations eld responsible for regulatory ofenses" The rt fcc to the provions en confection i cxpleacd by the fot Ct the Srporate fie wae prviuay howght to be a collateral conpequence af he Indias conviction (Neborfge): once the lator removed this des ‘nation. the puritive character ofthe corporate fine was vend dba and ths prevaling academic opinion he thatthe corporation must be awarded ths prosdal iht ofdlendant in rina proceedings "Acorigy, the corporation hay aight wo be ear ap ant be stn ‘woned to the na Rearing” forther, the corporation may appl fr the taking ferdcnce. "The egal tatu ofthe soporation under dete pov ons ds at fall correspond with that of man defendant rina fproseedings"? however (the right to apy forthe taking evidence Sor i Mane subject to entections). "Similar problems are ith eg 0 ‘he pre aust sesmcrmiaton em ener ae ipsum accra). ‘Acorn to the Federal Constiteional Coury, this prncple i nappleae ts teense it san emanation ofthe gharantee of human de art 1) of the Contain (Grandgent, herally Basis Law) Furthermore, de corporate ie ler rom » rial sentence esate Ics tended to shim off legal profits and dos not spl ethical ap proval!"¥ This judgment has been heavily erie a ncompatie w ‘the punitive faction of the corporate fine and a insuficetly ses to the nee foe asie guarantees in proceedings agsinst natural and = {al persons." tn any eas, legalation ow provide the peiege means eleineimination to corporations a wll" Pursuant to the general rules on representation, the corporation exer ‘ise ts procedural rights though itll representatives, a particle the members of i governing body ™ OF coum, to avoid » sonflet ‘of interets, legal tepesenatves charged withthe lfeae for which the corporation eto be fine are eat fromthe po! of pale "The natural persons representing che corporation have te lal status of adstendant i hls charge with eriminal or rgsltory ofl and Uh corporation is suppose to be Bae forth ofenae i tha sams pro tooling. o, they ont be suctncned tod examined a witmenes ef themselves or aginst the company ‘Anata person who as ot been charged is generally weatd 28 4 wees though the lal status of the corporation mst lo be take nto aotount i determining such an iva status ithe proceed Ing! Since the corporation exerenes is procedural rights (i particu, the sight o romain sent) ough sts Tegal representatives they ea hot be regarded as witnesses against the company” This applies to the governing body ‘dit members, rach as the executive diestor (Geschaftfvirer, member uf the executive and (Vorstanulamsaieder) tnd partners of company authorised to rpecett that company. By Contre ordinary employees en other persons representing the comp. Sach as the general ens or authorized representatives refered to In 50) No. 4 ROA, are witnesses! The same apples to former lt 1 Ga) mn emtece OP, 9 4242) OUP, § AND fin sates, CCP 8 "S292 Cah 5,284 rH, 2 1.representatives! (excupt layer, see below at SALA) and partners ‘who were not authorized to represent the company" During com ‘uamination, however, dese individuals may refse to answer questions i {thelr epics would expose them te prosestion ora ruminal ot regulatory ‘fee. hns bet augented hat any pernon capebleof eugene cor porate raponabilty eannex be a wits However, ethers reject such tn extensive reading ofthe provinion on the bass that the corporation pasty to exer is provedural rights i ensured by it eal represen tatves™ Acoordingy, member ofthe supervisory board” ave witnesses ‘sell SAA Investigation and Evidence ‘The imposition of «corporate fine fllows general procedural rules under German le Ar 4 comequence, there afe no special rules for (do tumentary) evince and the harden of prot om dhe state not the corporation Further, in principle all the provisions on cowrve mea Sure (eg. seareh ad seizure and surveillance of tlomyminictons) "opty to corporations, provided tht they are wt inherently limited (0 ‘tual persons (eaten) Also, dhe investigative powers ofthe prow itor o the administrative afeney proaacutng the regulatory offense are limited by profesional pele in 88 53, Sta 97, Nba CCP with the o> sult that defense counsel, storeys, auors, tax conmatants, hel, ‘harmciss, and Jouralists are not reuied to daclose cern types of Information obalned by them in thelr profesnal capacities. These pro- ‘isons sao apply to a corporation that exerlus on of thee profesional Funtions (eg by operating x hospital or publishing busines profs: ‘ional pile for bankers doesnot exis inthe German law on erm procedure.) These restrictions do not apply to persoms chanted with ‘edging gi "Aap aa 8 Ga S28, sy not y45 ge 3 3 278 timinal or relator ofense, however! Nevertheless, a coeroive mea Sire may volte the principle of proportionality Ht stongly afte the oer activity andthe interest of clients, patents, and other Cd paris 8.5 Recommendations “The corporat ine under § 30 ROA resulted from dhe long-standing cont teeween supporters and opponent of corporate criminal esponsbt. At ‘compromise, cannot sti both nor enn Ie regarded a4 coherent Poison on corporate reaponsibity in sown rh ‘On the one hand, an administrative sanction is imposed om the cut portion irapective of the qual uf the offense, Lethe same sanction "ppl to ores and regalatory offenses. On the other ad the sano> tom (he administrate ine of Geldbube) also apples to natural persons Soy the law noflects the fundamental ference between copra snd individuals andthe reaton of the Iter expacty for eral Sponsibity: a sllconscis mind, which enables the human bein elles om hier coaduct and to ral River fal! This dierence ‘notwithstanding the puntvesantonsafanet corporations have the ame ‘Sommenicative fiction aerial nentencen sine indus, be ‘Smdemning the breach of lw commited by the ofender (the corre ‘onan reeonttating dhe handing fore of de vslated orm (pice (Gencrapracention) “Thus the current system doesnot properly reflect the dferenoes be: ‘eso corporate snd indvialwrongoing and eiminal sentencing. On {the bust ofthis conctsion the allowing remedies shuld be onsite "Vist corporate sanctions should be steely istingusbed fom snetons that arc applicable wounds" Creating null “corporate” sin ‘on would allow the peculiarity of eal persons tobe taken Ino acount “pecially with regard to the pretequstn for compote responsibilty ‘ihe imputation of ronda conduct of representatives and organist failures) At the te tine, a speci corporate annctloning scheme cout tlio avend notin alleting the conditions feral repens for Wee gah 198 42438 Pra 1 1 Wicca Ktet 07 1 ot ty ool tn of drsatura penons, in pardcular, chow which relate tothe principle mila ‘Sccond, diferent sanctions shoul be Imposed on corportions for rine wo rouetory chases A smacion sesblshing corporste re ‘ponatlity for cine might hve ational poventive efits in tha ‘rou sigatae che corporation as crimina™*" The poston of such inction shoud not Jopend on the orton ofthe proecuting author homever. Thin dhe punitive fnstion of anctions shoul be erty iting from he objective of siphoning off gal pros in that red, the i on of two separate stntions (fn and forte) subjee oder ditions scene peferala tothe “bienctional” corporate fine provided for by # 30 ROA, a solely pontve fine, sich ax exists under 8 ICS), Sco entenee, ARC, lalate coordination between administrative ‘olay measures” Forte shoal, however, be ste’ ined to de rising the offender (or hid prt) of Hel profits; i eer woes, ar the callin of profit, the Nttprinip should be preferred to the Bruewprinci. our, te sroctionicg sclewe for corpostions shoeld ot be lin ued to bnaneial sanctions but should aio include measures to prevent ‘he corporation fom commiting erm inthe future” In this regard Was Deon suas thatthe Hegel pers shouldbe able to be subject frdanship. be the law amended wo that guardian could be a Potted torupervioc the corporsion’ activities In wiitoniatrctinns (iq to tte compliance program) should be considered suitable eo stressed tha adequate measures aginst corpo ‘rime can and mst ako be eken onside the amb of erin bw ey proviso steers the the emia justice stem. Adit event corporations fom engaging in gal condi, in part (echo spt iste Ue aoe of ction tf pointment of tte commissioner (xaperviaor). Special attention sod Ae pad eo private caforcementmvechasics based on compensation ad restitution Gas Ths new instruments have Hee. inroduoed in compatitn av Ine not yet had sant et monet, they eld conte {othe prevention of corporate erie i the necemary amends were doped