There are nine main reasons for the coexistence of corporate and individual criminal liability: 1) organizational secrecy; 2) number of suspects; 3) corporate profit motive; 4) expendability of personnel; 5) personnel beyond jurisdiction; 6) offenses defined by reference to corporate status; 7) corporate negligence; 8) corporate intentionality; and, 9) surrogate liability. Any thorough attempt to make individual criminal liability do the work of corporate criminal liability would result in a severe compromise of libertarian values. It is all well and good to call for increased enforcement resources, but nothing short of martial law is likely to enable effective enforcement against the numbers of individual suspects involved. Corporate standards and corporate decisionmaking transcend the relevance of individual behavior. Furthermore, as a matter of everyday experience, corporate and individual blameworthiness are radically different. It is a mistake to assume that corporate liability is necessarily corporate in impact and therefore inimical to the customary value of individual accountability as a means of social control. Corporate criminal liability serves to catalyze internal discipline. A dual focus is therefore necessary to preserve the liberties defended by those opposed to corporate criminal liability. Eight cases and 33 references are provided.