This condition was determined by differences in emphasis, in a number of judgments. In the Leumi & Co. case, where at paragraphs 27-28 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Strasberg-Cohen, it was held that a corporation bears criminal liability for an act of an organ, provided that it was done within the framework of the organ's role and is not contrary to the interest of the corporation or acts against it. In other words, it is not necessary that the offense be committed for the benefit of the corporation, it is sufficient that it does not act against it. The judgment did not discuss the question of what happens when, for example, the organization's intention was to benefit the corporation, but at the end of the day, the offense harmed the corporation (and not the actual exposure of it). Later rulings applied the test set in the Leumi & Co. case in various ways. Thus, for example, in the case of Arad Industries, the responsibility of the organ for any action that does not harm the corporation was expanded. On the other hand, inCriminal Case (Tel Aviv District) 6932/06 State of Israel v. Gad Zeevi [published in Nevo] (2008) it was held that it is necessary to prove that the corporation actually benefits from the act of the organ. In the Pan Lun case, the corporation was acquitted after it was determined that the organization's actions were directed against the corporation.
The Honorable Deputy President, Justice A. Rubinstein summarized the ruling in the Melisron case (in paragraph 121 of his judgment):
"It has been determined in case law in this matter that an action deliberately carried out by the organ against the interest of the corporation will not bind the corporation itself, since in this case the organ does not act as an organ but as a private person, and therefore its conduct should not be attributed to the corporation...The main justification for imposing liability on the corporation for the actions of the individual stems from the fact that the individual acted in order to benefit the corporation, and therefore, when he acted against the corporation, it would not be justified to hold the corporation liable for his actions....Thus, for example, when it was found that the company's manager made a false registration in the company's books in order to generate a profit for a party other than the company, it was determined that the company should not be held criminally liable (Criminal Appeal 24/77 "Pan-Loon", Engineering and Construction Company in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, IsrSC 33(1) 477, 493-494 (1979).On the other hand, when it was found that the organ acted both for the benefit of the company and for his personal benefit and for the benefit of the group of companies to which he belonged, it was determined that this does not diminish the company's criminal liability for its actions (National Matter, at p. 28)."