The Spanish Criminal Code establishes and prosecutes the criminal liability of the company directors and also the criminal liability of the legal entity itself (the company).
A company may be criminally liable for a series of offenses listed in a so-called corporate "catalog of offenses"; in turn, company directors may be criminally liable for those same offenses or for other offenses not included in such catalog; this obviously requires that the director's conduct be classified as a crime in the Criminal Code.
The main offenses that may generate liability for companies and their directors in Spain are the so-called:
- corporate crimes,
- crimes against workers,
- tax crimes and
- economic crimes.
In order to determine the liability of a director or an executive of a company in Spain, it is necessary to consider not only the denomination of the position of the director (whether or not he/she is a de jure director of the company) but also whether the director or executive behaves as if he/she were a de facto director of the company.
The director of a company will be criminally liable for the crimes he commits acting in the exercise of his/her position, even if he/she does not meet the conditions, qualities, or relationships that the corresponding figure of the crime requires in order to be considered as a perpetrator of such crime. That is to say, the Criminal Code establishes that, even if the director does not actively commit a crime, even if he/she is not the person who "carries out the criminal act", he/she may be liable for omission in the performance of his duties.
On the other hand, the mere fact of being a director of a company does not imply per se, that he/she is necessarily liable for a criminal offense; it will be necessary to prove that the director has performed an action or omission that has contributed to the material execution of the criminal offense.
In conclusion, a director of a company in Spain will be liable when a criminal act can be attributed to him/her, either by action or omission.
A director, by the mere fact of being a director, has the presumption of being the one who controls the facts occurred in a company. This presumption can be rebutted if the contrary is proven in the process, that is to say, if it is evidenced in the process that he/she neither had knowledge of the criminal act nor neglected his/her functions to know about it. However right of “ presumption of innocence “ is granted to any director or officer, that means that the Public Attorney should be the responsible to demonstrate the criminal liability and not the director.
In order to limit the liability of the companies and their directors, it is necessary to draw up a criminal risk map in accordance with the corporate purpose of the company, where it must be identified the main sources of risk of committing crimes and their levels of risk in the scope of its actions and those of its directors.
The commission of crimes attributable to the company may entail liability for the directors for not having taken all the necessary measures to prevent the crime.
The Criminal Code allows the company (and consequently its directors) to be exempted from criminal liability if it has initiated, promulgated, and established a criminal compliance plan system to identify criminal risks, design and implement internal policies and processes to avoid such risks, train its employees, managers and directors, and monitor compliance. To this end, it is essential for the directors to be the driving force behind the implementation of such plan.
On the other hand, not adopting the plan or designing it and not carrying out a recurrent follow-up of its application can lead to the criminal liability of the company and its directors.