I’ve got some legal questions about the recent kerfuffle involving Hobby Lobby and their [del]importation[/del] smuggling of [del]tile samples[/del] ancient artifacts. The first part probably has a fairly factual answer, but the second will likely prompt some debate so that’s why I put it here.
First, can someone explain, in semi-informed layman’s terms, the legal theory behind the artifacts themselves being the defendants in the civil case here? I honestly just don’t understand how this is even a thing. I know that this also impacts civil forfeiture cases, so I’m doubly interested in the theory. Is it a long, well-established way of handling such things? A recent innovation that could get overturned by law or judicial ruling? I honestly have no clue how this really works, or why.
Second, at what point do a company’s actions become criminal enough, or far enough outside the “purpose” of the company that officers can be held personally liable or accountable? I understand why Hobby Lobby would be the focus of an investigation if these artifacts were purchased with company funds and company resources, but I don’t understand why individuals within the company wouldn’t be in some kind of legal jeopardy. I get why, in general, persons within a corporation are not held individually liable for any number of actions on the part of the corporation, but I know that there are limits (i.e. “sham to commit fraud”). To a layman, these actions seem so far beyond “normal” corporate functioning that there ought to be legal consequences for the individuals who took part in this act.
As to your first question, forfeiture cases are generally named “US v the thing being seized”. My favorite is the 2008 “United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins”.
The limited liability for corporations applies to civil liability (with the caveats you allude to), it is of no help for criminal liability.
As for why individuals within the company are not criminally charged, perhaps it’s not the same office handling criminal cases, they’re putting a lower priority on going after individuals criminally or they’re trying to use the threat of criminal prosecution of individuals as an incentive to play ball in the civil suit.
I’m unsure of where the virtue lies in this case, on the one hand artifacts older than 100 years ought to stay roughly in the same country, on the other leave them where they are and someone like ISIS or Oliver Cromwell’s mob are going to come along and destroy old stuff for the religious lulz.
Anyway, defence:
“In 2009, Hobby Lobby began acquiring a variety of historical Bibles and other artifacts. Developing a collection of historically and religiously important books and artifacts about the Bible is consistent with the company’s mission and passion for the Bible,” Hobby Lobby said in a statement.
Kinda delightful if they swooned over them and hugged them and showed them off and they turned out to be recipes for summoning Babylonian Demonesses.