| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
For reasons including inability to impose some punishments,violating the principles of being personal punishments, not realization of punishment goal, specificity principle, constraints on procedures and most importantly, lack of guilt evidences, in negation, as well as arguments such as justice and criminology fact, difficulty of discovering the true culprit, scrutiny of the members and stakeholders in selection of managers, reduction of punishments for freedom hampering or injury of managers and finally compensation for damages inflicted on victims in a favorite manner have been expressed in proving criminal liability of the legal entities. Counterpoint approaches impact on the legal systems was so that until the twentieth century, the legal entities' liability was put in doubt as a principle. But since the second half this century following the legal entities activity scope, especially the companies, and rise of crimes against environment, organized crimes, specifically transnational crimes, crime in the field of transportation and industry in general caused the leading countries as Canada, England, United States,Netherlands and the Europe Council to accept and regulate the criminal liability of the legal entities as a must, despite of criminal law shortcomings, through relying on theories such as vicarious liability, secondary character, employers and superiors' responsibility, collective guilt and criminal liability of the legal persons. Alnahayah the movement for criminal liability of the legal entities, made Iran to join the system; so that inability for in the first step cyber crimes 2009 in particular, and in the second step for the Islamic penal law, in general were accepted. Scrutiny in transformation of the Iranian law in this regard, specifically in the above mentioned bill has been the effort of the present paper. |