Case Briefs- Criminal Law

Only 1 in 12 million couple share these

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: . The Defendant set forth sufficient evidence to establish these elements of the defense of necessity. Discussion. Necessity is an available defense in prison escape situations, provided all of the elements of the defense are proved. US v. Hilton Hotels Corp. (Corporation liability for its agents) Synopsis of Rule of Law. A corporation is criminally liable for the acts of its agents in the scope of their employment, even where agents have acted against the express policy of the corporation. Facts. A group of businesses in Portland set up an association whereby their suppliers were encouraged to contribute money to the association in order to retain their business. The association was established to fund activities to attract conventions to Portland. The Defendant corporation expressly notified its agents not to participate in the association, as it contravened corporate policy. Nonetheless, a purchasing agent for the Defendant threatened a supplier with loss of the corporation’s business unless it contributed money to the association. Issue. Is a corporation criminally liable under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section:1 (the Act), for actions taken by its agents in the scope of their authority, but counter to corporate policy? Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed. It is appropriate to hold the corporation liable for the acts of the individual agent because insomuch as the Act violations are commercial offenses, it is the corporation that will profit from the illegal activity and not the agent himself. Violation of the Act are in fact typically the result of pressure to maximize profits, leading individual agents to go against a general corporate policy for the sake of enhancing the profits of the corporation. Corporate liability for violation of the Act is appropriate on account of the generally complex business structures through which a violation occurs, making it difficult to identify the particular agents that were involved in the unlawful activity. Even where the agents are identified and prosecuted, it is ineffective as a deterrent as no consequences would befall the corporation itself. Discussion. This case represents a further step taken in law to hold corporations accountable for their unlawful actions, even when done by an agent acting against corporate policy and proc...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online