"Between the corporation as the perpetrator of the offense and the organ as the perpetrator of the same offense, precisely because of the full identification between them, there is not the slightest hint of partnership that assumes at least two sources of doing and thinking. They are not two "parties" to the same offense. They are only responsible for the same offense and each for a different consideration; The organ undertakes the offense because it committed it in all its elements, whatever the framework in which he committed it; The corporation is liable for the same offense, because the law attributes it to it, although it itself is unable to do anything. The organ undertakes in the offense that it is the real perpetrator of it; The corporation is obligated to do so by virtue of the construction of the law only. Each of them is considered the perpetrator of the same offense."
The Honorable Justice M. Landau reiterated his words in the Paz case. With regard to the theory of organs, the Honorable Justice Landau noted there (ibid., at p. 99): Much ink has already been spilled in the literature and case law in countries of accepted law on the idea of the identity of a body that is incorporated with the person acting on its behalf, for the purpose of criminal liability, and there is still clarity from us on this issue.".
The Supreme Court reiterated this question inCriminal Appeal 115/77 Avraham Lev v. State of Israel, IsrSC 32 (2) 505 (1978), where the conviction of a company for criminal offenses following fraudulent acts by its owners and managers was discussed. The Honorable Justice M. Ben-Porat noted (ibid., at p. 520): "The 'identification' ruleIt is the basis for the conviction of a society for a criminal act committed by a person who belongs to the type of 'other self'. There is no doubt that at the top of the ladder of this type are the principals..."
The issue of the criminal liability of a corporation in general and the theory of organs in particular was discussed at length in the judgment inthe Informants case. There the doctrine of organs was established as the basis for the criminal liability of corporations (the words of the Honorable Justice A. Barak, where he began paragraph 6 of his judgment at p. 181):