Here is the converted article following markdown format:

Evolution of Corporate Criminal Liability in Spain: Key Rulings by the Supreme Court

The Spanish Supreme Court has played a crucial role in shaping corporate criminal liability through its rulings over the years. The following key points highlight significant developments in this area.

Vicarious Liability

In a landmark ruling dated June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court established that legal persons can be held criminally liable for offenses committed by their representatives or employees. However, it is essential to note that individual liability still applies to those who have participated in the offense.

This ruling sets a precedent for holding companies accountable for actions taken by their agents.
It emphasizes the importance of internal controls and oversight within organizations.

Benefit of Corporate Business

The Supreme Court’s ruling on June 21, 2017, highlighted that for a legal person to be held criminally liable, the crime must have been committed directly or indirectly to its benefit. Conversely, if the company was aggrieved and adversely affected by the crime, it cannot be held liable.

This decision underscores the concept of “benefit” as a key factor in determining corporate criminal liability.
It also emphasizes the need for companies to implement measures that prevent harm from within.

Compliance Programs

On June 28, 2018, the Supreme Court recognized the growing importance of compliance programs in reducing criminal liability risks for companies. This ruling acknowledges the role of internal controls and procedures in preventing corporate wrongdoing.

The court’s decision highlights the benefits of implementing robust compliance programs within organizations.
It encourages companies to prioritize ethics and compliance in their operations.

Electronic Communications at Work

The Supreme Court’s ruling on October 23, 2018, adopted the European Court of Human Rights’ doctrine on electronic communications at work (the Barbulescu II doctrine). This means that employees who accept and sign a company’s internal policy prohibiting private use of professional assets have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

This decision has significant implications for employee privacy in the workplace.
It emphasizes the importance of clear communication about company policies and expectations.

Anonymous Reporting

A judgment issued on February 6, 2020, validated anonymous reporting as a legitimate source of internal investigations in companies to uncover possible fraud. This ruling acknowledges the value of whistleblower protection and encourages employees to come forward with concerns.

The decision highlights the importance of creating a safe and confidential environment for employee reporting.
It promotes transparency and accountability within organizations.