As noted, in this case, according to the indictment, Aaronson, Weiss and Hirsch are organists who pass both tests.
3.2.3.b. Wasn't the legislation intended to exclude the liability of a corporation in criminal offenses?
The second condition, which must be met in order to determine by virtue of the doctrine of organs that a corporation is criminally liable for the activities of the organization, is whether it is an offense that the legislature intended to be attributed to the corporation as well. In light of section 23 of the Penal Law, and in light of the conceptual basis for imposing criminal liability on corporations, it appears that most of the offenses were also attributed to corporations in the event that the organization committed the offense. Of course, with the exception of offenses that relate only to a human being, such as rape or bigamy, the nature and nature of which cannot be attributed to the corporation. The Honorable Justice Barak noted this in the Modi'im case (in paragraph 18 of his judgment, at p. 390):
"Indeed, the point of departure in principle should be that any norm that determines legal consequences with respect to a person also applies to a corporation. It can be assumed, therefore, that the purpose of the law is to apply it to a corporation as well. Only when a 'different intention' is requested – that is, when the purpose of the relevant law is inconsistent with the application of the norm to a corporation – is there room for a deviation from the general approach, while limiting the results of the norm to human beings, flesh and blood only."
The Honorable Vice-President Justice A. Rubinstein discussed this test in the Melisron case (in paragraph 119 of his judgment):
As for the first test, as is well known, section 4 of the Interpretation Law, 5741-1981 states that, as a rule, wherever Israeli law relates to a "person", the law or the directive of the director will also apply to a corporation; There is no dispute that this is also true with regard to the imposition of criminal liability, and the matter is anchored in our long-standing legal system... However, when it comes to offenses of a "humane" nature, such as bigamy, rape, etc., it has been noted in the past that there is no place to apply the doctrine of organs and attribute to the corporation the criminal behavior and thought of the organ..., and common sense is also connected to this in these examples. But there may also be other cases; A perusal of this court's rulings shows that so far this test has not been used in order to negate the application of the theory of organs in its entirety, and the discussion, if it existed, was of a purely theoretical nature....Thus, for example, even in the offense of causing death by negligence, which can be argued to be of a "human" nature, it was found that the corporation must be found criminally liable, for violating the Occupational Safety Ordinance (New Version), 5730-1970 and the regulations thereunder (Criminal Appeals Authority 8174/05 Doron v.The State of Israel [published in Nevo] (2005); ... To this, I will add that it is highly doubtful whether there is room for categorical determination, and each case must be examined on its own merits."