Environmental Law

Again with the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine

By Walter James

Sorry for the length of time between posts - real life got in the way - I have been traveling and been in trial.  Now I am back!!!

How is it that a person sitting in an office in New York City, New York gets convicted of an environmental crime that occurred in Galveston, Texas? By being the responsible corporate officer. That should scare the hell out of any compliance officer . . ..

The definition of ?person? in the CWA and the CAA includes ?any responsible corporate officer.? 33 U.S.C. § 1319 (c)(3); 33 U.S.C. § 7413 (c)(6). Under this definition, the

?responsible corporate officer? doctrine developed. Under this doctrine, knowledge may be inferred merely from the position of responsibility and authority within a company. See United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975); United States v. Dotterwich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943). In its extreme, the doctrine equates knowing offenses with negligence. United States v. Dee, 912 F.2d 741 (4th Cir. 1990). While the ?responsible corporate officer? doctrine is not widely used, nor has it gained universal support (some courts are rejecting the ?should have known? standard, see United States v. MacDonald Watson Waste Oil Co., 933 F.2d 35 (1st Cir. 1991) and United States v. White, 799 F. Supp. 873 (D. Wash. 1991)) it is gaining in application and acceptance.

How does one defend against that charge? One defense tactic could be that that status, position and authority within a company should be used only as circumstantial evidence of actual knowledge. Additionally, whether there was active deception in a facility to prevent a ?responsible corporate officer? from gaining full and complete information regarding environmental compliance will be important to determine.

More later.

If you have any questions, please e-mail me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.

WDJiii

Full post as published by Environmental Crimes Blog on November 07, 2007 (boomark / email).