最發達的西方司法管轄區在學術上討論了公司的刑事責任。廣為人知的災害[ 1 ]，被近在這一主題的作者似乎一致同意推動這種增長在本學科的知名度和有沒有需要進一步考慮為什么公司犯罪是一個大問題，但是值得說明當初的動力存在不排除附加刑事責任的企業行為的優點評價。 法人刑事責任的問題遠沒有新的擬人法應用于企業實體的謬誤已經超越了時代，是因在第十八世紀，描述企業缺乏靈魂被詛咒的”或“身體被踢的[ 2主Chancellor Baron Thurlow的話]。在進行討論會由統一的“靈魂”或有形的“身體”建立的犯罪和懲罰它一直是主要的思想問題，公司目前對刑法的不足。這些被認為是直接發展的法律在第十六世紀初，并顯示我們將看到一個明顯缺乏成熟的法律人格理論。然而，在我們去思考這些問題，我們要看一下我們是否應該將所有的企業行為。
n most developed western jurisdictions there has been a proliferation in the academic discussion of criminal liability for corporations. The well publicised disasters that are cited by nearly every author on this subject seem to be the unanimously agreed impetus for this increase in popularity of this subject and there is no need to further consider why corporate criminality is such a large issue, however it is worthwhile stating at the outset that the existence of impetus does not preclude any evaluation of the merits of attaching criminal liability to corporate acts. The problems of corporate criminal liability are far from new and the fallacy of anthropomorphic laws applied to corporate entities have transcended the ages and been immortalised by the words of the Lord Chancellor Baron Thurlow in the eighteenth century that described corporations as lacking a ‘soul to be damned’ or a ‘body to be kicked’. As the proceeding discussion will show the lack of unifying ‘soul’ or corporeal ‘body’ by which to establish criminality and punish it has been the main ideological problems which corporations present to the criminal law. These are argued to be direct developments of the law in the early sixteenth century and show as we shall see a distinct lack of a sophisticated theory of legal personality. However, before we go onto consider these questions we have to take a moment and consider whether we ought to criminalise corporate behaviour at all.