THE HISTORY OF CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS TRACED, AND DETERRENCE, RETRIBUTION, AND REHABILITATION ARE DISCUSSED AS RATIONALE FOR CORPORATE PUNISHMENT. THREE POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO CORPORATE ILLEGALITY -REVITALIZING EARLY COMMON LAW AND REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY, BROADENING THE SCOPE OF CIVIL PENALTIES WHILE RETAINING CORPORATE IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, AND IMPOSING CRIMINAL SANCTIONS -ARE NOTED. THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE IS REJECTED ON PRACTICAL GROUNDS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT A CRITICAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION -- THE REQUIREMENT THAT GUILT BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT -- WOULD BE DENIED CORPORATIONS IF CORPORATE ILLEGALITY WERE SANCTIONED THROUGH CIVIL RATHER THAN CRIMINAL PROCESSES. ANALYSIS OF FINES, DISGORGEMENT OF ILLEGALLY GAINED PROFITS, AND PROSECUTION OF INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICIALS CONCLUDES THAT A COMBINATION SANCTION INVOLVING ALL THREE ALTERNATIVES MUST BE INTRODUCED INTO REGULATORY STATUTES IN ORDER TO OBTAIN BOTH A DETERRENT AND A RETRIBUTIVE EFFECT WHILE CREATING THE POSSIBILITY OF REALISTIC PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION. (LKM)