"The Amendment is limited to a person who shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, and if he cannot set up the privilege of a third person, he certainly cannot set up the privilege of a corporation."
For the reasons for denying the right to self-incrimination from corporations in the United States, see: Katherine K. Andritsakis, "Comment, Corporate Record-Keepers and the Right Against Self-Incrimination: An Equitable Approach to Fifth Amendment Analysis", 27 Santa Clara L. Rev. 411, 422 (1987). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol27/iss2/7. (hereinafter: Andritsakis, Corporate Record-Keepers)
Some argue that it is appropriate to grant the right against self-incrimination to corporations as well (see: Wagner, Corporate Right to Remain Silent, ibid., at p. 538). Others argue that it is possible to conclude from the judgment in the Citizens United case that the time has come to apply the right against self-incrimination to corporations as well (see: Slobogin, Citizens United, ibid., at p. 132). Others argue that the social justification for this right relates to the distinction between innocent and criminals, and therefore corporations should also be allowed the right to remain silent (see Gordon Van Kessel, "Quieting the Guilty and Acquitting the Innocent: A Close Look at the New Twist on the Right to Silent", 35 Ind. L. Rev. 25, 932 (2002)). Thus, more credibility should be given to companies that cooperate in the investigation and do not maintain the right to remain silent, as well as stemming from the adversary process and the presumption of innocence.
In Australia, suspects and defendants have the right to remain silent. The reason for the right to remain silent is to prevent self-incrimination, and it also exists in civil proceedings. The right to remain silent is not granted to incorporated bodies, since their main ideological basis is to prevent pressure to obtain evidence and confessions. In Environmental Protection Authority v Caltex Refining Co. Pty. Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 477, 508, 118 ALR 409, 411, the Court held with respect to these rights that: