Legal Entity as a Means, a Method, a Instrument of Committing a Crime

The possible criminal liability of a legal entity is the most famous dispute. Understanding the nature of the legal person as a fiction or reality is the main argument of the parties. Then other approaches to the involvement of a legal entity in criminal law began to be developed. For example, the legal entity is not considered as a perpetrator of crime, but as a means, a method, and a weapon of committing a crime. We will turn to the arguments presented in theoretical approaches on the recognition of a legal entity as a means, a method, a weapon of committing a crime, as well as judicial practice. Legal entity is proposed to be considered not as a perpetrator, but as a weapon of a crime based on the fictitious nature. Opponents of this approach argue that a weapon is always a real material object. However, judicial practice generally shows the recognition of a legal entity as a weapon of a crime. In this case, if an organization is used as a weapon, the reality of its activity is not taken into account. The focus is made only on the individual — the perpetrator of the crime, and the legal entity and its autonomy are ignored. Theoretical approaches suggest that a legal entity should be viewed as a means of committing a crime. But not the legal entity as a whole, but only the institutionallegal forms of legal entities. A legal entity is also recognized as a means of committing a crime in jurisprudence. It is argued that the infrastructure and legal structure of a legal entity is also used as a method of committing a crime. In judicial practice we see a direct indication that a legal entity has been created by an individual for the purpose of committing a crime. In this way, the theories of fiction and reality of a legal entity are used by the parties to the dispute. Courts directly indicate that the legal entity has been used as a weapon and means of committing a crime, while ignoring its autonomy and focusing on an individual.