12/17/19
Traditional Doctrines
Individual Actus Reus
CORPORATE CRIMES
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, COLLEGE OF LAW
3 participated in some manner to assist in its commission”
1 2
Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine
— Provides a way to bring actus reus and mens rea
together in a single person when they’re split across
different
— One who has control over activities that lead to a
subordinate’s violation of a statute may incur
liability for failure to the duty, commensurate with
his position of authority in the corporate hierarchy,
to prevent and correct such violations
— ONLY can attribute actus reus; officer must still have
relevant mens rea
3 4
U.S. v. Dotterweich, cont’d
— Trial Court: conviction
— Circuit Court: reversed
¡ Reasoning: “difficult to believe Congress expected anyone
except the principal [the company] to get such a guaranty, or
to make the guilt of an agent depend on whether his employer
had gotten one.”
— SCOTUS: upholds conviction
¡ Reasoning: primary concern was to control distribution of
drugs; there is aiding and abetting liability for all who have a
“responsible share” in the furtherance of putting adulterated
and misbranded drugs in stream of commerce
¡ PWD themes rearrise
5 6
— Individuals obviously liable for their own acts
— Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 371)
¡ Agreement to commit some further offense plus a step by one
party in furtherance
— Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. 2(a))
¡ Punishable for acts of others if defendant “aids, abets,
counsels, commands, induces or procures” an offense; must
have “shared in the intent to commit the offense and
¡ Punishable if “willfully cause an act to be done which if
performed by him or another would be an offense”
U.S. v. Dotterweich
— Facts: D is president and GM of pharma company
which bought adulterated drugs from a
manufacturer and shipped them under its own label;
no evidence D knew about the shipments; company
did get a guarantee form manufacturer, which would
have immunized it from liability
— Law: misdemeanor for “any person” to ship
misbranded drugs
Responsible Relation
— What does it mean?
¡ “It would be too treacherous to define or even indicate by way
of illustration the class of employees which stands in such a
responsible relation.”
¡ “In such matters the good sense of prosecutors, the wise
guidance of trial judges, and the ultimate judgment of juries
must be trusted.”
— Dissent
¡ Worries this will criminalize officers who committed no wrong
1

U.S. v. Park
— Facts: D is CEO of Acme Markets; FDA sends letter to D
about unsanitary conditions in the warehouse where food
was stored; D and Acme charged with storing food in a
building where rodents could contaminate it
— Issue: Jury instruction required finding that D “held a
position of authority and responsibility.” Is that enough?
Should it have required a wrongful act as well?
— D’s Arguments:
¡ He didn’t personally participate
¡ Subordinates said they’d take care of it
¡ Jury instructions didn’t define “responsible relationship”
¡ Can’t be convicted just because of position in company
7 8
Breakout Discussion
— What steps should Park have taken?
¡ “Implement measures that will insure that violations will not
occur”
9 10
Summary
— Interpretive Principles for men rea
¡ Presumption against strict liability, ignorance of law is no
excuse, rule of lenity
— Public Welfare Doctrine: When no mens rea is
specified or the mens rea is ambiguous, courts will
generally require a lower mens rea when dangerous
devices or obnoxious wastes are involved
¡ Factors: severity of penalty, dangerousness of conduct,
possibility of public harm, obviousness that conduct is
regulated, risk of criminalizing innocent conduct
11
12/17/19
U.S. v. Park, cont’d
— Holding: against D
¡ Food and drug cases attribute to corporate agents not only
personal acts but also acts for which the agent could be
“deemed responsible” “by virtue of [his] managerial position or
other similar relation”
¡ Not convicted just for his position in company; jury asked if D
“had a responsible relation to the situation” “by virtue of his
position”
— When can an agent be “deemed responsible”
¡ If he had power to prevent an act
— When is an agent not “deemed responsible”
¡ When it was “objectively impossible” to prevent
Hypo
— Law penalizes “Any person who knowingly
transports or causes to be transported any hazardous
waste to a facility that does not have a permit.” Jury
instructions say that the government must prove that
the defendant had responsibility for the activities
alleged. Are these sufficient?
Summary Cont’d
— “Willfully” and ignorance of law: apply usual PWD
factors plus whether conduct is immoral
— Good faith reliance defense to fraudulent intent
¡ D sought advice before action, in good faith from an attorney
he considered competent, future conduct, full and accurate
disclosure, acted strictly in accordance with advice
— Willful blindness: subjective belief in high
probability and affirmative step
12