Deceptive business practices.

- Although O.C.G.A. § 16-9-50, defining the crime of deceptive business practices, does not contain in the statutory definition any indication of a legislative purpose to impose liability on a corporation, the state is not required to allege the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22 in accusations under § 16-9-50, but only to prove that defendant corporation or managerial agent authorized deceptive practices. State v. Military Circle Pet Ctr. No. 94, Inc., 257 Ga. 388, 360 S.E.2d 248 (1987).

While a corporation may not be imprisoned, it may be fined, and the fine enforced by levy on its property. State v. Shepherd Constr. Co., 248 Ga. 1, 281 S.E.2d 151, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1055, 102 S. Ct. 601, 70 L. Ed. 2d 591, appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1074, 102 S. Ct. 626, 70 L. Ed. 2d 609 (1981).

Court may give suspended sentence to and impose fine upon corporation.

- Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22(a), a corporation can be prosecuted for violating the law, and a court may sentence a corporation to serve a term for years (even though such sentence is incapable of enforcement) and may suspend that sentence and impose a fine. State v. Shepherd Constr. Co., 248 Ga. 1, 281 S.E.2d 151, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1055, 102 S. Ct. 601, 70 L. Ed. 2d 591, appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1074, 102 S. Ct. 626, 70 L. Ed. 2d 609 (1981).

Corporation's liability under RICO for acts of employees.

- A corporation could be held liable in a civil action for RICO predicate acts performed by its employees within the scope of their employment. Cobb County v. Jones Group, 218 Ga. App. 149, 460 S.E.2d 516 (1995).

In an action in which an interexchange carrier asserted that it was not obligated to pay fees to a local carrier for misrepresented toll-free cell calls, an amendment to add claims alleging violations of under the Georgia RICO Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-1 et seq., was granted as corporate officers had actively presented the plan for payments not allowed under the tariff and there was substantial evidence that the local carrier misrepresented the origination of calls for which it charged. ITC Deltacom Communs. v. US LEC Corp., F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2004).

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal appeals court held that legal workers employed by a Georgia rug manufacturer were entitled to sue their employer for state RICO violations because the corporation was a "person" for purposes of O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4; the court relied on the Supreme Court of Georgia's decision that O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22, which placed limits on corporate criminal liability, did not pertain to civil suits brought under the Georgia civil RICO Act. Williams v. Mohawk Indus., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, mot. denied, 549 U.S. 1260, 127 S. Ct. 1381, 167 L. Ed. 2d 174 (2007).

Liability for theft.

- Corporation could only be criminally liable for theft in Georgia pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-2-22(a)(2) for crimes by an officer or official who was acting within the scope of his employment on behalf of the corporation, as the applicable theft statutes did not contain language that clearly indicated a legislative purpose to impose liability on a corporation. Schroerlucke v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 584 (Fed. Cl. 2011).

Theft by taking.

- Evidence was sufficient to support defendant corporation's conviction for theft by taking based upon the conduct of its principals while acting on behalf of the corporation. Davis v. State, 225 Ga. App. 564, 484 S.E.2d 284 (1997).

Cited in First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. State, 141 Ga. App. 471, 233 S.E.2d 861 (1977); Classic Art Corp. v. State, 245 Ga. 448, 265 S.E.2d 577 (1980).

When corporations are criminally responsible for violations of Surface Mining Act.

- Corporations will be criminally responsible for acts or omissions constituting violations of O.C.G.A. Part 3, Art. 2, Ch. 4, T. 12 (Surface Mining Act) if, but only if, activities constituting crime were authorized, requested, commanded, performed, or recklessly tolerated by either the board of directors or by an officer or other agent of comparable authority acting within scope of that person's authority in behalf of corporation. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 70-155.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Conspiracy, § 17. 18B Am. Jur. 2d, Corporations, §§ 1620 et seq., 1820 et seq., 40A Am. Jur. 2d, Homicide, § 4.

ALR.

- Individual criminal responsibility of officer or employee for larceny or embezzlement, through corporate act, of property of third person, 33 A.L.R. 787.

Criminal liability of corporation for extortion, false pretenses, or similar offenses, 49 A.L.R.3d 820.

Acquittal of principal, or his conviction of lesser degree of offense, as affecting prosecution of accessory, or aider and abettor, 9 A.L.R.4th 972.