{"title":"协助及教唆法定罪行","authors":"B. Downey","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00522.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"HAD Slade J. been in a position to agree with the other members of the Divisional Court in National Coal Board v. Gamble,1 the case might have provided some important guidance on the question of the criminal responsibility of corporations for the acts of their servants or agents. As it was, the case turned upon the narrower question of the intent necessary to constitute the offence of aiding and abetting.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aiding and Abetting a Statutory Offence\",\"authors\":\"B. Downey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00522.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"HAD Slade J. been in a position to agree with the other members of the Divisional Court in National Coal Board v. Gamble,1 the case might have provided some important guidance on the question of the criminal responsibility of corporations for the acts of their servants or agents. As it was, the case turned upon the narrower question of the intent necessary to constitute the offence of aiding and abetting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":426546,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00522.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1959.tb00522.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
HAD Slade J. been in a position to agree with the other members of the Divisional Court in National Coal Board v. Gamble,1 the case might have provided some important guidance on the question of the criminal responsibility of corporations for the acts of their servants or agents. As it was, the case turned upon the narrower question of the intent necessary to constitute the offence of aiding and abetting.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
