Extract
[...] Question of law: The question that arises in this particular case is whether the criminal liability of the head of the company 'Offshore', the captain of the ship and the company 'Superstructure' can be retained under the offence of failure to comply with occupational safety obligations? Applicable Rule of Law: In law, Article 121-2 of the Penal Code provides that 'Legal persons, excluding the State, are criminally liable, according to the distinctions of articles 121-4 to 121-7, of the infractions committed, for their account, by their organs or representatives. [...]
[...] In addition, as previously mentioned, Article 121-2 of the Penal Code provides that legal persons are criminally responsible for the infractions committed on their behalf by their organs or representatives. And, "lthe criminal liability of legal persons does not exclude that of natural persons who are authors or accomplices of the same acts, subject to the provisions of the fourth paragraph of article 121-3 (la force majeure). In addition, case law, in particular the Court of Cassation's ruling of 16 June 2021 (No. [...]
[...] In accordance with Article 121-2 of the Penal Code, he therefore engages his penal responsibility. As for the manager of the Offshore company, he is the legal representative of the company. Therefore, Article 121-2 of the Penal Code is intended to apply to him. Finally, if the company 'Offshore' merges with another to become a new company 'Superstructure', under the previously cited case law, the absorbing company can now be criminally convicted for acts committed before the merger by the absorbed company. [...]
[...] Solution: In these circumstances, the penal responsibilities of the ship's captain, the manager of the 'Offshore' company, and the 'Superstructure' company can be held. II. On the crime of corruption Facts: The judicial investigation also reveals facts of corruption in the procurement of the wind turbine installation contract. In fact, a secret payment was made in favor of the president of a coastal commune community, involved in the wind power project. The confessions of the elected official and the head of the company 'Offshore' confirm this illegal practice. [...]
[...] In this context, the manager of the subsidiary 'Offshore', acting in accordance with the strategies decided by the 'InnovConstruct' group, could be considered as a representative of the parent company in the execution of these strategies. Finally, the fact that the manager of the 'Offshore' company did not derive any personal benefit from the crime of corruption does not exempt the manager from his penal responsibility, as specified in Article 121-3 of the Penal Code. The practice of corruption remains a penal offense, subject to penal prosecution. [...]
