# Corporations and criminal law **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 10, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713 "2011-12-10T07:45:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/1 "2011-12-10T07:45:25Z")
Let’s say a corporation issues [a false DMCA takedown request, which is perjury, which is a criminal offense.](http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request) The takedown request is signed by the corporation and from the corporation and of the corporation, by the corporation, and from the corporation… sorry. I know there’s likely to also be a lawsuit involved, and that that is a civil matter and that I am a silly person. I want to know what happens if a prosecutor wants to go after someone for the criminal charge. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/2 "2011-12-10T08:03:02Z")
Corporations can be charged with crimes, but they end up being fined rather than imprisoned. They may also be subject to a range of other penalties, such as having licenses revoked. Officers of corporations may be charged with the crimes of the corporation, but it is much more difficult to prove that an officer had the requisite mens rea to support a conviction, as is required by US criminal law (in nearly all cases). If it can be proved, however, then they are often subject to not only the charge for the crime itself, but potentially conspiracy, racketeering, or other charges. ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/3 "2011-12-10T08:05:16Z")
But wait. Now that corporations are people . . . . ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/4 "2011-12-10T08:25:48Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > But wait. Now that corporations are people . . . . They’ve been treated as people in many ways for quite some time > [@](#): > > A corporation created by and transacting business in a state is to be deemed an inhabitant of the state, capable of being treated as a citizen for all purposes of suing and being sued… LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI & CHARLESTON R. CO. V. LETSON, 43 U. S. 497 (1844) > **[Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson, 43 U.S. 497 (1844)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/43/497/)** > > Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/5 "2011-12-10T08:34:16Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > … The takedown request is signed by the corporation … Corporations can’t sign anything. When a signature is needed, an officer or agent of the corporation signs it, not the corporation itself – that officer or agent being a “natural person”, or in lay terms a real person. (Nevertheless, the corporation itself might still have criminal liability, if the officer or agent had the right authority to sign the document on behalf of the corporation.) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/6 "2011-12-10T08:45:41Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Corporations can’t sign anything. True in the paper world, but a DMCA takedown request can be an email. **Darth Panda** : Very interesting. ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/7 "2011-12-10T08:49:03Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > They’ve been treated as people in many ways for quite some time > > LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI & CHARLESTON R. CO. V. LETSON, 43 U. S. 497 (1844) > > [Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson | 43 U.S. 497 (1844) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center](http://supreme.justia.com/us/43/497/case.html) Yeah, I know. I was referring to the SCOTUS case that gave them the right to political speech. I’m guessing you aren’t a Colbert fan. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/8 "2011-12-10T09:59:26Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > True in the paper world, but a DMCA takedown request can be an email. Any DMCA notice must include a signature. Electronic, in the case of email. [cite](http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/faq.cgi#QID130). ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/9 "2011-12-10T10:12:20Z")
> [@tellyworth](#): > > Any DMCA notice must include a signature. Electronic, in the case of email. [cite](http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512c/faq.cgi#QID130). All of the uses of ‘signature’ in that document are in terms of ‘person’ or ‘complaining party’; nowhere does it say ‘_natural_ [del]woman[/del] person’. Is that implied by something? ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/10 "2011-12-10T10:26:50Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > All of the uses of ‘signature’ in that document are in terms of ‘person’ or ‘complaining party’; nowhere does it say ‘_natural_ [del]woman[/del] person’. Is that implied by something? Even if the act is in the name of the corporation, the act itself is performed by a physical person and that physical person cannot avoid criminal liability. In the same manner, if, as CEO, I hire a hitman to take out my competition, signing everything as CEO in the name of the company using company funds, I’ve committed a criminal act. I can’t say “the company did it, not me!”. Corporate personality acts as a shield against most instances of civil liability\*, not criminal liability for the acts you perform, even in the name of the corporation. When Giles says that a corporation can’t sign anything, I think he means the physical act of signing rather than the judicial act which triggers legal consequences. For example, a corporation can enter into a contract. It doesn’t sign the contract in the physical sense but it does in the judicial sense of obligating itself. I also don’t think that the term “signature” can apply to a corp. That term grew out of a need to identify physical persons by the variations in the manner in which they signed their name; not really applicable to an immaterial legal fiction. - Getting into the exceptions to that would be rather too detailed and might vary a lot across jurisdictions. ---
**Author:** ![tellyworth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@tellyworth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tellyworth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/11 "2011-12-10T10:27:08Z")
I would have said it’s implied by the word “signature”. Do you know of another kind? [Regardless](http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html) (my emphasis): > [@](#): > > § 512. (3) (A) (i) A physical or electronic signature of a **person** authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. I believe “electronic signature” refers to the ESIGN act, and effectively means “type your name at the bottom”. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/12 "2011-12-10T10:38:38Z")
Sorry, adding on: Something often missed by non-lawyers is that criminal liability isn’t zero sum. A prosecutor can go after both the physical person and the corp. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/13 "2011-12-10T10:41:30Z")
**MichaelEmouse** : All of your arguments certainly make sense. **tellyworth** : Well, that’s the problem with the word ‘person’ in this context; ‘corporate personhood’ a real legal concept even if Firefox’s spell-checker doesn’t like the words ‘personhood’ or ‘personhoot’. Law is all about close reading and extracting meaning from places most people never realize you can grab and twist. That said, I’m pretty sure **MichaelEmouse** is correct here. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/14 "2011-12-10T13:48:34Z")
If anyone is really interested in this topic, I would recommend reading a few cases: United States v. Hilton Hotels, 467 F. 2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1972) State v. Chapman Dodge Center, 428 So. 2d 413 (La. 1983) United States v. Park, 421 US 658 (1975) United States v. Hong, 242 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2001) United States v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2003) Pinkerton v. United States, 328 US 640 (1946) Best read in that order. They’re actually all pretty short, too. It’s tough to explain the combined effect on a message board (either that or I’m too lazy 🙂 ), but if you read through these you’ll understand the subject pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/15 "2011-12-10T13:53:32Z")
> [@dzero](#): > > Yeah, I know. I was referring to the SCOTUS case that gave them the right to political speech. I’m guessing you aren’t a Colbert fan. I am and I got the reference. But in fairness to GQ, the extension to political speech wasn’t really surprising from a legal point of view. > [@](#): > > In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; 1 USC 1. Literally, the first law on the books 🙂 And from oral arguments during the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394) case in 1886: > [@](#): > > The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does. > **[Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad)** > > Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations. > The case arose when several railroads refused to follow a California state law that gave less favorable tax treatment to some assets owned by corporations as... ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/16 "2011-12-10T15:09:54Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Corporations can be charged with crimes, but they end up being fined rather than imprisoned. They may also be subject to a range of other penalties, such as having licenses revoked… What I want to see is a corporation have to register as a sex offender. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/17 "2011-12-10T18:17:09Z")
with cooperations as stated above the company can be fined and it’s officers and agents sent to jail. It however might not be easy to link a person to the crime. ---
**Author:** ![dzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@dzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dzero)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/18 "2011-12-10T19:13:02Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > I am and I got the reference. But in fairness to GQ, the extension to political speech wasn’t really surprising from a legal point of view.[URL=“[Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad)”] Well, IDK. Maybe, maybe not. It did overturn more than 100years of precedent. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/19 "2011-12-10T19:51:39Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > with cooperations as stated above the company can be fined and it’s officers and agents sent to jail. It however might not be easy to link a person to the crime. Under Sarbanes-Oxley, certain US corporations have a legal obligation to retain items like internal emails and other electronic messages (for 7 years, IIRC). If compnay A issues a DMCA takedown, then it came from an account - who sends from that account, who (digiatlly?) signed it? If Officer B says “it was not me” then is he lying, obliviously allowing others to send on his behalf, or was it someone impersonating him? Somehere buried in all that misbehavoiur or lying to cover it up is a perjury or obstruction charge, too. If the sum total of emails from A show that the group enforcing copyright intended to send the (incorrect) takedown, then company A is liable for the error. If the discussion indicates B was told to send a signed takedown, B inists he did not but a notice was somehow sent from B’s email, then there may or may not be enough to hold him responsible - but he better hope the corporation pays for the lawyer to defend him from the takedown and possible perjury/obstruction charges. Otherwise its what we call a pyrrhic or OJ victory, where you win but go broke trying. So that’s another likely outcome. If you say “it wasn’t me” then they will (a) make you tell that under oath to a grand jury, then (b) see how well the snarkey attitude and obvious stupid story fools a judge and jury. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713/20 "2012-01-02T01:39:48Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Let’s say a corporation issues [a false DMCA takedown request, which is perjury, which is a criminal offense.](http://targetlaw.com/consequences-of-filing-a-false-dmca-takedown-request) The takedown request is signed by the corporation and from the corporation and of the corporation, by the corporation, and from the corporation… sorry. > > I know there’s likely to also be a lawsuit involved, and that that is a civil matter and that I am a silly person. I want to know what happens if a prosecutor wants to go after someone for the criminal charge. I live in Ohio, and here it outlines this for here; > **[Section 2901.23 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws](https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2901.23)** [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/corporations-and-criminal-law/605713.md?page=2)