نشریه آموزه های حقوق کیفری
پیاپی 6 (پاییز و زمستان 1392)

Corporate bodie's dominance over various aspects of human's social life, specifically along with the growth of privatization process in the late 20th century is irrefutable and undeniable. Inefficiency of civil and administrative sanctions in preventing the corporate bodies from dangerous activities has made many legal systems -including England since 19th century and Iran since April 2013- recognize the corporate criminal liability based on the reasons as criminology reality, similar bases for civil and criminal reliabilities, higher precision in selection of managers among members and shareholders and difficulty in specifying the faulty corporate bodies.However, liability acceptance is accompanied by the essential questions about criterion for imposing a crime to corporate body; i.e. how can we impose the fault to an authoritative existent? Can physical and mental elements of crime be attributed directly to corporate body or it must be attributed indirectly- vicariously-? Do a corporate body's criminal intent and behavior lower to the related member's criminal intent and behavior? Or can we achieve an intent and behavior liability model to prosecute criminal intent and behavior in the corporate body itself as well as its structure without emphasizing on recognition of the guilty person? The law doctrine does not believe in a unique model concerning the crime attribution to a corporate body. Some models including vicarious liability model rely on agency principle and assume the corporate body as indirect liable. On the other hand, some models including Alter Ego Doctrine, Aggregation Doctrine and Corporate Body Policy consider the individual as direct liable. In this paper, we are going to study various approaches to corporate bodie's criminal liability; and it is assumed that appropriate model is one that does not restricted to legal person, but searches for liability in corporate body structure.

It is for long that mass media publish stories on heavy fraud and financial crimes and trials for financial corruption. Money laundering, as one of the organized crimes, plays a key role in continuation of original crimes. The reason why money laundering is considered a crime and what logical reasons account for its criminalization have been paid little attention. This is most peculiar with general tendency toward diversion. This paper intends to restudy fundamentals of money laundering by presentation of various criminalization models such as “equilibrium” and “filtration” and its conformity with fundamentals of money laundering criminalization in a bid to prove why it is necessary to consider money laundering as a crime.

Whereas cheque, as a negotiable instrument is increasingly used, its problems based on unpayment forces the legislator to use penal solution to restrain them. However, the extent of claims about bounced cheques shows that actually this policy was not useful.It seems to be profitable if legislator apart from recognition of holder's rights tries to recognize the nature of cheques seeking help from commercial regulations instead of changing its nature to solve problems.In this article, we made an effort to consider last researches and the cheques's legislation diary and describe the nature of cheques as an independent commercial instrument in order to open a new way to the legislator to use penal implement in the commercial sphere, effectively. Also it would be more effective if he uses the capacity of civil and commercial sanctions to avoid society issuing bounced cheques.