3.2.5 Whether the immunity granted to the organization should also be attributed to the corporation
The defendant's main argument is that just as criminal liability should be attributed to Siemens Israel by virtue of the Organics Doctrine for the actions of Weiss, Aaronson and Hirsch, at the same time Siemens Israel should be attributed the immunity that the organs received.
3.2.5.a. The Pine Theory is intended to attribute offenses to the corporation
The analysis of the theory of organs, its conceptual basis, and the imposition of criminal liability on a corporation by virtue of it, teaches, as I will clarify below, that its purpose is only to attribute criminal liability to the corporation. In order to do so, it was necessary to overcome the fact that the corporation, which is not a human being, does not think, and therefore an offense committed by the organization was attributed to the corporation. This is a direct responsibility. You see the thoughts and behavior of the organ, those of the corporation. This is an "ego" and not an "alter-ego" of the corporation. In this regard, the words of the Honorable President E. Barak in the matter of informants (paragraph 7 of his judgment at p. 381) are appropriate:
"It is worth emphasizing that this talk about the 'brain', the 'center of 'I am different' and the like, plastic descriptions are nothing but metaphorical speech. This is nothing but a fiction created for reasons of legal policy... The corporation has no brain, and it does not have a nerve center. The organ is not a "different me"...... The fact that for certain purposes the action of the organ is attributed to the corporation, does not mean that the physical entity of the organ confers a physical entity on the corporation. Indeed, the metaphorical talk of "brain", "nerve center", "I am different" has no meaning other than this: when a legal norm requires a human quality (such as thought (awareness, intention), active action, etc.), then with regard to the crystallization of these human qualities in the corporation, it is enough that the same qualities are crystallized in the organ. Anyone who wishes to shorten the path and describe the law in a human image will say that we "attribute" to the corporation the human qualities of the organ. There is nothing wrong with this form of speech, provided that we always remember that "attribution" is nothing but a metaphor, that a corporation has no human qualities, and that the entire purpose and function of organ theory is nothing but to ensure that a legal norm, which requires the existence of human qualities, can in principle apply to a corporation as well. ... From a legal standpoint, it was said that a corporation is criminally liable for an active and thoughtful action that took place on the part of the organ, in circumstances in which the law deems it appropriate that liability be imposed on the corporation in which those organs operated."