6.2.2.a. The only penalty that can be imposed on a corporation is a fine
One of the essential differences between a corporation and a corporation is that a corporation cannot bear the harsher punishment that exists in the statute book – the penalty of imprisonment (see in this regard chapter 5.3.2 above on the policy of punishment for offenses committed only by a corporation). Hence, as I noted, it is difficult to meet the principle of proportionality when the only punishment, in the current legal situation, is a penalty of a fine. When this is the case, it is clear that the principle of rehabilitation should be preferred.
In the case of offenses called "white collar" offenses, it was determined that in principle, the public interest should be preferred over rehabilitation, and prison sentences should be imposed, both in light of the severity of these offenses, and in light of the fact that in most cases those who committed these offenses had no previous criminal record, and the chances of them recidivizing the crime are low, so there is no real significance to rehabilitation in this context. As the Honorable Justice Meni Mazuz noted in the Bar Ziv case, in paragraph 21 of his judgment:
"Indeed, section 40D(a) of the Penal Law authorizes the court to deviate from the appropriate penalty range that it determined for reasons of rehabilitation, but in our case there was no justification for this.
The rule is that in the punishment of bribery offenses, the public interest should be given priority over other considerations, and one should not deviate from the strict punitive policy that includes imprisonment behind bars, including for rehabilitation considerations.... This is because, inter alia, like the respondent in our case, most of those involved in bribery offenses and other "white collar" offenses are not "habitual offenders", but rather normative people with no criminal record who are not "rehabilitated" offenders, and the risk that they will re-commit offenses in general, and offenses of the type for which they were convicted in particular – is much lower in any case. Therefore, in such offenses, decisive weight must be given to the consideration of deterring the public, in the sense of 'so that they may see and be seen.'"