The Criminal Liability of Organizations for Economic Crimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La version francaise de cet article peut etre consultee au:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2500362 When Bill C-45 came into force in 2004, it introduced major modifications to the Canadian penal law system concerning the participatory liability of organizations for the commission of criminal offences. The main purpose of the Criminal Code amendments was to facilitate the conviction of organizations further to the commission of offences by its representatives, to induce them to do more to protect their employees and the public. Meanwhile, recent case law developments, more specifically the cases of R. v. Petroles Global Inc. and Canada v. Maxzone Auto Parts (Canada) Corp., demonstrate that, going forward, organizations will face a greater risk of criminal prosecution and conviction for the acts and omissions of their representatives, especially for subjective mens rea offences under the Competition Act and the Criminal Code. Although the changes made to the Criminal Code are now nearly 10 years old, it was only recently that the courts were called upon to analyze the effect and scope of the changes. In light of recent case law, this article discusses the impacts of the 2004 amendments in terms of subjective mens rea offences. In addition, this article analyzes and comments on the scope of the Bill C-45 amendments as they relate to economic offences and the participatory liability of organizations, the determination of the sentence, and the imposition of probation conditions suitable to organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".