With the knowledge that risk has become an omnipresent concept used to understand various social problems, this study aims to fill a perceived gap in literature by investigating the way in which risk discourse is applied to understand different categories of crime, namely traditional crime and corporate crime. It is hypothesized that risk logic is heavily applied to the understanding of traditional crime, with minimal attribution to conversations surrounding corporate crime. The pervasiveness of risk as a technique or tactic of government renders the study of its application to different types of crime an important addition to the existing risk literature. Using the method of a comparative content analysis, the parallels and discrepancies between the ways in which risk is used to discuss traditional and corporate crime by Canadian federal criminal justice organizations are explored. The results indicate a lack of focus on risk logic with respect to corporate crime, but demonstrate that risk discourse is perhaps not altogether absent from corporate crime discussions.

While in several jurisdictions corporate criminal liability is accepted, in Brazil the maxim still prevails that corporations cannot commit crimes. In common law countries the attribution of criminal liability to corporations was developed more than a century ago, and the concept of corporate criminal liability has been extensively discussed. This work is an attempt to look into the common law experience and to offer a plausible basis for the introduction of corporate criminal liability in Brazil. The research is essentially theoretical; it is mostly based on relevant literature from Britain, Canada and United States, three exponents of common law jurisdictions, and on relevant literature from Brazil.

With the knowledge that risk has become an omnipresent concept used to understand various social problems, this study aims to fill a perceived gap in literature by investigating the way in which risk discourse is applied to understand different categories of crime, namely traditional crime and corporate crime. It is hypothesized that risk logic is heavily applied to the understanding of traditional crime, with minimal attribution to conversations surrounding corporate crime. The pervasiveness of risk as a technique or tactic of government renders the study of its application to different types of crime an important addition to the existing risk literature. Using the method of a comparative content analysis, the parallels and discrepancies between the ways in which risk is used to discuss traditional and corporate crime by Canadian federal criminal justice organizations are explored. The results indicate a lack of focus on risk logic with respect to corporate crime, but demonstrate that risk discourse is perhaps not altogether absent from corporate crime discussions.

While in several jurisdictions corporate criminal liability is accepted, in Brazil the maxim still prevails that corporations cannot commit crimes. In common law countries the attribution of criminal liability to corporations was developed more than a century ago, and the concept of corporate criminal liability has been extensively discussed. This work is an attempt to look into the common law experience and to offer a plausible basis for the introduction of corporate criminal liability in Brazil. The research is essentially theoretical; it is mostly based on relevant literature from Britain, Canada and United States, three exponents of common law jurisdictions, and on relevant literature from Brazil.

Surveillance has long been used as an enforcement tool to detect conventional crimes and identify and punish offenders. However, its watchful gaze has been strategically directed away from the area of corporate crime. Corporate crime has long been under-studied and under-researched, despite the fact that the damages it causes amount to millions, even billions, of dollars. Its omission from the surveillant gaze, however, has been no accident. Because corporate offenders hold higher positions in society and possess greater political and economic resources than conventional street criminals, corporate offenders have often been able to resist the regulatory attempts against them. This thesis explores the underuse of surveillance as an enforcement tool in corporate crime, but also examines the regulatory climate that perpetuates this. It explores the main tools for addressing criminal and regulatory violations that are used by law enforcement agencies charged with enforcing corporate crime. This thesis identifies and examines five barriers—cultural, political, economic, legal, and technological—that have acted to limit and even prevent surveillance as a tool of regulation against corporate crime. Through an analysis of academic literature and public sources, this thesis assesses the small number of initiatives where surveillance strategies have been attempted in the field of corporate crime and investigates the reasons the attempts have been limited in number, scope and effect. The aim of this thesis is to draw attention to underuse of surveillance in corporate crime and question the current regulatory framework. / Thesis (Master, Sociology) -- Queen's University, 2011-04-26 14:38:11.581

Given the overwhelming financial and human costs of crime committed through the incorporated entity, this thesis explores corporate criminal liability in criminal law as a mechanism of social control for corporate crime. First, this thesis traces the fundamental claims regarding corporate criminal liability in both the jurisprudential and sociological literatures in an effort to explore how law applies liability in a criminal context to the incorporated entity. Second, the contemporary corporate criminal liability landscape in Canada is examined. In particular, an examination of Bill C-45 as codified corporate criminal liability and as criminal law in action is empirically grounded in a detailed review of both the black letter law of corporate criminal liability and the judicial case documents on prosecutions against incorporated entities for corporate crimes. Finally, this thesis analyzes the socio-legal environment of corporate criminal liability through its construction and operation within Canadian criminal law. Overall, as a result of the legal, cultural, political, and economic privileges of the incorporated entity, corporate criminal liability is a product of a socio-legal environment that inhibits the ability of criminal law to be an effective mechanism of social control for corporate crime. Only when corporate criminal liability recognizes the complexities of the social, economic, and organizational structures and practices that are shaping corporate criminal activities can it become an effective mechanism for regulating the most harmful corporate misconduct. Otherwise, as this thesis demonstrates, corporate criminal liability will continue to be all bark and no bite. / Thesis (Master, Sociology) -- Queen's University, 2014-06-17 16:56:40.627

With the knowledge that risk has become an omnipresent concept used to understand various social problems, this study aims to fill a perceived gap in literature by investigating the way in which risk discourse is applied to understand different categories of crime, namely traditional crime and corporate crime. It is hypothesized that risk logic is heavily applied to the understanding of traditional crime, with minimal attribution to conversations surrounding corporate crime. The pervasiveness of risk as a technique or tactic of government renders the study of its application to different types of crime an important addition to the existing risk literature. Using the method of a comparative content analysis, the parallels and discrepancies between the ways in which risk is used to discuss traditional and corporate crime by Canadian federal criminal justice organizations are explored. The results indicate a lack of focus on risk logic with respect to corporate crime, but demonstrate that risk discourse is perhaps not altogether absent from corporate crime discussions.

With the knowledge that risk has become an omnipresent concept used to understand various social problems, this study aims to fill a perceived gap in literature by investigating the way in which risk discourse is applied to understand different categories of crime, namely traditional crime and corporate crime. It is hypothesized that risk logic is heavily applied to the understanding of traditional crime, with minimal attribution to conversations surrounding corporate crime. The pervasiveness of risk as a technique or tactic of government renders the study of its application to different types of crime an important addition to the existing risk literature. Using the method of a comparative content analysis, the parallels and discrepancies between the ways in which risk is used to discuss traditional and corporate crime by Canadian federal criminal justice organizations are explored. The results indicate a lack of focus on risk logic with respect to corporate crime, but demonstrate that risk discourse is perhaps not altogether absent from corporate crime discussions.

Taking the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) as its empirical focus, this study engages in a critical analysis of (capitalist) state regulation and corporate social responsibility as it relates to the Canadian extractive industry. Using a theoretical-analytical combination of Marx’s ideology theory and critical discourse analysis, the study explores discourses pertaining to the introduction, creation, and role of the CORE – the Canadian state’s most recent response to corporate harms and crimes within the industry – to uncover the factors that shaped this process. Further informed by critical criminological literature on corporate crime, the study found that dominant neoliberal capitalist narratives prevailed in determinations of which regulatory approach should be adopted by the state. Dominant voices sidetracked counter-hegemonic claims in debates about human rights and international development by prioritizing the economy, leaning on Canada’s “good” global reputation, downplaying the violence of the industry, and redirecting blame. Ideological assumptions about the nature of state regulation, corporations, and capitalist law and politics further influenced which knowledge claims “won out.” Despite the emergence of the CORE as a logical state response to corporate crime and impunity, however, debates about its role are ongoing. This not only reinforces the idea that (capitalist) dominance is never absolute but signals the ever-present nature of resistance and possibility for change.

This study critically examines rulings of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement’s (NAFTA) Chapter 11, ISDS provides foreign investors with the tools to launch a claim against signatory countries should they feel their investment was inhibited by local regulations. Empirically this study draws upon Windstream Energy LLC. v. the Government of Canada as a case study to analyze the competing responses exchanged during the tribunal’s hearings. The claim by Windstream Energy LLC against the Government of Ontario (GoO) serves as both a central and relevant example for examining the ramifications of ISDS, as it is one of Canada’s most recent defeats featuring the largest award outside a pre-tribunal ISDS settlement. Information was drawn from tribunal documents, referred to as a Memorial and Counter Memorial, which outline each party’s argument and supporting claims. Additionally, the tribunal publishes their final decision and justifications. A critical discourse analysis method, theoretically informed by the corporate crime literature and Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, helps in critically examining the economic, political, and cultural assumptions that influenced the tribunal’s decision and the state’s approach to foreign investment. Overall, dominant voices reinforced neoliberal beliefs about transnational market expectations and the role of the state under a globalized capitalist system. Justifications rooted in market logics prioritized the accumulation of foreign capital over the potential dangers of Windstream’s project. Ultimately, it is the inclusion of corporate safeguards, like ISDS, in free trade pacts that help to (re)produce neoliberal capitalist ideals and further reinforce status-quo economic relations.