For example, it is not clear whether Section 165 covers only the general manner by which the corporate business enterprise is conducted , or it covers every particular transaction that is committed with fraud.
We posit therefore that if Section 165 of the RCC will be construed by the courts to allow criminal punishment of the corporation as the medium through which the acting directors, trustees or officers committed a fraudulent act, it can only cover specific acts which under existing criminal statutes are already defined as criminally fraudulent.
In addition, Section 166 provides that when there is a finding that any of the corporation’s directors, officers, employees agents, or representatives are engaged in graft and corrupt practices, the corporation’s failure to install: a.) safeguards for the transparent and lawful delivery of services; and, b.) policies, code of ethics, and procedures against grant and corruption shall be prima facie evidence of corporate criminal liability under Section 166.
The last paragraph of Section 166 addresses partially that issue when it provides that “When there is a finding that any of its directors, officers, employees, agents or representatives are engaged in graft and corrupt practices, the corporation’s failure to install: a.) safeguards for the transparent and lawful delivery of services; and, b.) policies, code of ethics, and procedures against graft and corruption shall be prima facie evidence of corporate liability under this section.