3.2.3. Conditions for Imposing Criminal Liability on Corporations: The Law Today
Section 23 of the Penal Law and the case law that interpreted it set the conditions for imposing criminal liability on a corporation for criminal thought offenses. Thus, tests were established on the question of who is an organ, whose actions and thoughts will be attributed to the corporation, and it was also determined that it is necessary to examine whether it is appropriate for a certain offense to apply to a corporation. It is also necessary to examine whether the offense committed by the organ was committed in the course of its duties, and whether it is not an offense that harms the corporation. The last two tests also have their origin in the theory of organs, since the behavior and thoughts of an organ can only be attributed to a corporation if it acted as an organist for the benefit of society. Admittedly, this is a decision based on preliminary arguments, and the time has not yet come to examine the defendant's responsibility. However, the defendant claims that by virtue of the theory of organs, by virtue of which she is attributed criminal responsibility in the indictment, the immunity given to the organs should also be attributed to her. Therefore, for this purpose, it is necessary to understand the conditions for imposing liability on a corporation by virtue of the Organics Doctrine, so that I can examine whether the conceptual basis for them requires the granting of immunity to Siemens Israel by virtue of the immunity granted to the organs on its behalf.
3.2.3.a. Who is an organist?
The case law dealt extensively with the question of who is an organ. For our purposes, the definition of an organ derives the scope and boundaries of a corporation's criminal liability. At this stage of the proceeding, there is no need to elaborate on this matter, since according to the indictment, on the basis of which the preliminary arguments discussed in this decision were argued, the three officers with whom state witness agreements were concluded, were organs of Siemens Israel at the time of the commission of the offense, and by virtue of them, Siemens Israel is attributed criminal liability. However, it is important to note that already at this stage, there is a trend emerging from the case law to expand the definition of an organ in order to lead to the conviction of corporations. I will discuss this in a nutshell as they are required for the continuation of the operation.