Indeed, a review of the literature and case law shows that due to the increasing involvement of corporations in the economy and their activity in almost all areas of life, they should be held criminally responsible. Thus, the flourishing of corporations during the Industrial Revolution and the exploitation of workers by corporations led to the imposition of some responsibility on them even then (for a review of the history of Anglo-American law, see Kathleen F. Brickey, "Corporate Criminal Accountability: A Brief History and an Observation", 60 Wash. U.L.Q 393 (1983)). The view of the corporation today both as a business entity, and as a member involved in the community, contributes to this trend of imposing criminal liability on corporations (on this view of the corporation, see: Ali Bukshpan, The Social Revolution in Business Law, 119, 197 (2007).
In Criminal Appeal 3027/90 Modi'im Binui and Development Company in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, 4(4) 364 (published in Nevo, 1991, hereinafter: the Modi'im case), the Honorable Justice A. Barak (as he described it at the time – all the titles of judges as they were at the time of the judgments), noted (paragraph 8, p. 384):
"The social goals that the company seeks to achieve through criminal law are consistent with the recognition of the corporation's personal criminal liability. In modern society, the corporation is a major basis for human activity. There are countries where there are more corporations than human beings. Where the corporation conducts behavior that is perceived by the company as criminal – tax evasion, violation of planning and building laws, conducting activities that are contrary to public morality (pimping for prostitution), etc. – the values that the company wants to protect by imposing personal criminal liability on the corporation. In this way, we promote the goals of preventing the recurrence of offenses and deterring."
The Honorable Judge A. Procaccia inCriminal Appeal Authority 9008/01 State of Israel v. A.M. Turgeman Ltd., IsrSC 57(5) 799 (2003, hereinafter: the Turgeman case), in paragraph 12 of its judgment at p. 810: