“FROM INDIVIDUALS TO ENTITIES: UZBEKISTAN’S SHIFT TOWARD CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND LESSONS FROM THE U.S. EXPERIENCE”
Abstract
as emerging markets rapidly integrate into the global financial system, the legal mechanisms used to combat corporate misconduct are undergoing a profound harmonization. For decades, a deep doctrinal divide existed between the United States’ common-law approach—which aggressively utilizes the doctrine of respondeat superior to hold corporations criminally liable—and the traditional civil-law maxim societas delinquere non potest (a legal entity cannot commit a crime), long adhered to by post-Soviet states like the Republic of Uzbekistan. However, driven by sweeping economic liberalization, the pursuit of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and pressure from international anti-corruption bodies, Uzbekistan is currently navigating a historic legal paradigm shift to formally introduce corporate criminal liability (CCL) into its statutory framework.
References
I. United States Case Law
1, New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481 (1909). (The landmark Supreme Court case establishing the constitutionality of corporate criminal liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior).
2. Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005). (Illustrates the catastrophic collateral consequences of corporate indictments, leading to the popularization of DPAs).
II. United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Guidance & Policies
3. U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing (The "Yates Memo"). Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates. Washington, D.C.
4. U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group (The "Monaco Memo"). Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco. Washington, D.C.
5. U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division. (2023). Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs (Updated March 2023). (The definitive guide used by US prosecutors to assess the effectiveness of a corporate compliance program).
III. Republic of Uzbekistan Legislation & Policy
6. Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Approved by the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated Sept. 22, 1994, with subsequent amendments).[Reflects the historical reliance on individual culpability / societas delinquere non potest].
7. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. ZRU-419. (Jan 3, 2017). On Combating Corruption. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
8. Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. UP-6013. (June 29, 2020). On Additional Measures to Improve the Anti-Corruption System in the Republic of Uzbekistan. (The foundational decree establishing the Anti-Corruption Agency of Uzbekistan and mandating internal "compliance control" units).
9. Draft Law on Amendments and Additions to the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedural Code, and Criminal Enforcement Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Drafted 2023). (The specific legislative framework currently being debated to introduce legal entity liability for corruption, money laundering, and trafficking offenses)
IV. International Treaties & Standards
10. United Nations. (2003). United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). (Ratified by Uzbekistan in 2008; Article 26 requires state parties to establish the liability of legal persons for participation in corrupt offenses).
11. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) / Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). (Aug 31, 2023). Opinion on the Draft Amendments Relating to Corporate Criminal Liability in Uzbekistan (Opinion-Nr.: CRIM-UZB/469/2023). Warsaw, Poland. (A critical legal analysis evaluating Uzbekistan's draft CCL laws against international human rights and corporate legal standards)
12. UK Parliament. (2010). Bribery Act 2010 (c. 23). (Referenced for its Section 7 "Failure to Prevent" model of organizational liability, serving as an alternative to the U.S. strict vicarious liability model).
V. Secondary Sources & Academic Journals
13. OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. (2015). Liability of Legal Persons for Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. OECD Publishing. (Provides the historical context of how post-Soviet states historically utilized administrative rather than criminal law for corporations)[2].
14. Otajonov, A. A. (2023). "Criminal Liability of Legal Entities: Issues of Theory, Legal Regulation and Law Enforcement Practice." World Bulletin of Management and Law, Vol. 29, 28-32. Tashkent State University of Law. (Details the domestic debate among Uzbek legal scholars regarding the abandonment of the societas delinquere non potest doctrine)
