In Chilean law, difficulties arise when it comes to ascribing criminal responsibility to corporate management bodies that give orders to their subordinates to commit intentional crimes of domination, which is explained by a variety of reasons, both dogmatic and of positive law. According to the “individual ascription of legal responsibility model”, the direct perpetrator of a crime is the person who carries out both the actus rea and means rea of an offence, without grounds for justificatory or excusatory defenses of guilt. Due to the existing division between making decisions and taking action in the corporate sphere, management bodies do not typically carry out the respective criminal conduct and, consequently, cannot be perceived as principal perpetrators. Moreover, they will often avoid making co-perpetration contributions, a...

In Chilean law, difficulties arise when it comes to ascribing criminal responsibility to corporate management bodies that give orders to their subordinates to commit intentional crimes of domination, which is explained by a variety of reasons, both dogmatic and of positive law. According to the “individual ascription of legal responsibility model”, the direct perpetrator of a crime is the person who carries out both the actus rea and means rea of an offence, without grounds for justificatory or excusatory defenses of guilt. Due to the existing division between making decisions and taking action in the corporate sphere, management bodies do not typically carry out the respective criminal conduct and, consequently, cannot be perceived as principal perpetrators. Moreover, they will often avoid making co-perpetration contributions, as described in article 15, Nos 1 and 3 of the Chilean C...

Commission by omission presents important difficulties as a mechanism to penalize corporate management bodies that violate their duties of organization, instruction, supervision or intervention. These difficulties are related to the legal requirements in terms of (quasi-)causality and intent. To overcome these obstacles, a sector of German criminal doctrine has proposed different alternatives de lege ferenda—in the form of criminal types different from those of improper omission—to punish the infringement of the aforementioned duties. The purpose of this article is to explain and critically assess these proposals.

In Chilean law, difficulties arise when it comes to ascribing criminal responsibility to corporate management bodies that give orders to their subordinates to commit intentional crimes of domination, which is explained by a variety of reasons, both dogmatic and of positive law. According to the “individual ascription of legal responsibility model”, the direct perpetrator of a crime is the person who carries out both the actus rea and means rea of an offence, without grounds for justificatory or excusatory defenses of guilt. Due to the existing division between making decisions and taking action in the corporate sphere, management bodies do not typically carry out the respective criminal conduct and, consequently, cannot be perceived as principal perpetrators. Moreover, they will often avoid making co-perpetration contributions, a...

Commission by omission presents important difficulties as a mechanism to penalize corporate management bodies that violate their duties of organization, instruction, supervision or intervention. These difficulties are related to the legal requirements in terms of (quasi-)causality and intent. To overcome these obstacles, a sector of German criminal doctrine has proposed different alternatives de lege ferenda—in the form of criminal types different from those of improper omission—to punish the infringement of the aforementioned duties. The purpose of this article is to explain and critically assess these proposals.