Alter Ego Identification Theory

The idea of Doctrine of Identification finds its origins in the English Law. The progress of this doctrine has helped in the implication and prosecution of the criminal actions of directors or managers of many companies.

The corporate personality of a company is different and separate from the agents, directors or owners of the company. This is a generally known principle in law and has its source in one of the well-known case of Salomon v. Salomon . In this case, the Court held that the corporate entity is different from the people who are in the business of running of the company. The breach of this principle results to “Lifting of the Corporate Veil” where the shareholders or creditors of the company are protected if the company is engaged in any fraud or other criminal activities. At the same time, this theory possesses several relationships with criminal and tortious liability of companies. This paper will demonstrate the critical evaluation of this areas of law in the context of appropriate cases and other relevant various sources. Alter Ego identification theory:

It was not until the 1940s that English law considered a form of corporate liability in various judgement as DPP v. Kent & Sussex Contractors Ltd . R v. ICR Haulage Ltd and Moore v. Bresler Ltd , which could possibly amount to

Certain types of offences such as false accounting and regulatory offences committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary of a company make those officers criminally liable . When proceeding against company officers in these circumstances the offence by the body corporate must be proved, but it is not always possible to secure the conviction of the company, and this is not required R v Dickson and Wright 94 Cr App 7 . Prosecutors may consider proceedings against the company officers where the company has been