This Article analyzes the extent of corporate criminal liability in the Anglo‐American legal system and provides a brief comparison of how this topic has developed in Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The Author explains the American theory of respondeat superior and the factors that are taken into consideration when determining liability, examines the more cautious British approach and the development of the theory of the organs of the corporation, and discusses how these theories have influenced the Israeli approach to corporate criminal liability. The Author also discusses the trend to expand criminal liability, which he calls the second generation of corporate criminal liability by referring to recent laws in the United Kingdom, caselaw in the United States, and internal committee recommendations of the Ministry of Justice in Israel. For example, some lawmakers are attempting to impose a legal duty on entities as an affirmative measure to prevent the commission of certain white‐collar crimes. This and other forms of expansion of corporate criminal liability now impose liability on entities in situations in which such liability would not be imposed on humans. The Author further considers the expansion of criminal liability and the societal reasons for doing so, and then concludes by asking whether the expansion of criminal justice exceeds the cost of deviating from the basic rules of criminal liability.