It follows that criminal liability will not be imposed on a corporation where the organ was indifferent to the consequences of its actions and the act by its nature was not beneficial to the corporation."
The conceptual basis, therefore, is to identify the behavior and thoughts of the organ and see them as the activities of the corporation, where the organ acted for the corporation. In this regard, it should be emphasized that as a rule, they considered the best interest of the corporation even if an organ operated for the benefit of another corporation in the group. In this regard, the Honorable President A. Barak ruled in criminal appeal 5383/97 Tempo Beer Industries in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel, 55(1) 557, 563 (2000), in paragraph 10 of his judgment:
"It should be noted that in determining the liability of appellants 1 and 2, the court did not find it necessary to separate them, even though the purchase of the shares of "Tempo Beer" was made by "Tempo Plastic", and even though the prospectus – and the non-disclosure therein – was published on:By "Tempo Beer" and not by "Tempo Plastic". This is what he determined, since the two companies formulated together – through their organs – the entire action plan for the purchase of the shares of "Tempo Beer", and executed it together.
President Barak approved this reference of the District Court. Similarly, the Honorable Deputy President, Justice A. Rubinstein, discussed the matter explicitly in the Melisron case (paragraph 125 of his judgment):
"I am of the opinion that in cases where the officer, as an officer of one company, acts for the interests of the other company and takes this into account in his actions, this is also sufficient to determine that each of the companies is directly responsible for his actions, even if these were allegedly done only out of one of them... One should not allow holding the stick at both ends and enjoying both worlds, i.e., acting for the sake of both – yes, the responsibility of both – no; This will not be done in our place..... There are situations in which it would be appropriate to convict the group of companies as a group, since the law must trace the essence of the activity and not the formal structure of the incorporation, in such a way that no sinner will be found guilty of using the veil of incorporation as an artificial shield."