| dc.contributor.advisor | | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ram Mohan, M. P. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-01-13T09:08:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-01-13T09:08:31Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019-12-10 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22746 | |
| dc.description.abstract | The cases of Standard Chartered v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005), Iridium India v. Motorola Inc & Ors. (2011), and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation represent a significant development in India’s corporate criminal liability jurisprudence. Standard Chartered reconciled mandatory imprisonment (as prescribed for punishing many offences under Indian law) with the impossibility of imprisoning corporations, Iridium explained whether corporations are capable of committing crimes which require intent (mens rea), and Sunil Bharti Mittal clarified whether the liability of a corporation for a criminal act can be attributed to its directors/promoters. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | BP0438; | |
| dc.subject | Corporate Governance | en_US |
| dc.subject | Corporate criminal liability | en_US |
| dc.subject | Alter Ego | en_US |
| dc.subject | Theory of Attribution | en_US |
| dc.subject | Business Law | en_US |
| dc.subject | Negligence and Liability | en_US |
| dc.title | Corporate criminal liability in India | en_US |
| dc.type | Cases and Notes | en_US |
| dcterms.publisher | Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad | |
