us-constitution corporate-law fifth-amendment
Can a Corporation Exercise a Fifth-Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination?
<p>So I googled "can corporations plead the fifth?" and I got a bunch of non-cited sketchy sources.</p>

<p>Is there a precedent around a corporation <strong>refusing to produce documents</strong> as a result of a subpoena to prevent self-incrimination? </p>

<p>A hypothetical would be if my corporation was consulting for a foreign government and had documents that said my company had used my position in my home government to help the foreign government. If the corporation had documents that proved it had intentionally mishandled that relationship or a conflict of interest would the corporation be able to invoke the fifth amendment to not have to produce those doucments?</p>

<p>As far as I know, the leading case on the matter is <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/201/43/case.html" rel="noreferrer">Hale v. Henkel</a>, 201 US 43. There, the court explains</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating
  questions unless protected by an immunity statute, a corporation is a
  creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the
  legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has
  exceeded its powers. There is a clear distinction between an
  individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the
  State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books
  and papers for an examination at the suit of the State; and an officer
  of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a statute
  cannot plead the criminality of the corporation as a refusal to
  produce its books.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The court specifically denies that corporations have 5th Amendment rights:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The benefits of the Fifth Amendment are exclusively for a witness
  compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, and he cannot
  set them up on behalf of any other person or individual, or of a
  corporation of which he is an officer or employe.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This contrast with protection against unreasonable searched of corporations, per the 4th Amendment:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>A corporation is but an association of individuals with a distinct
  name and legal entity, and, in organizing itself as a collective body,
  it waives no appropriate constitutional immunities, and, although it
  cannot refuse to produce its books and papers, it is entitled to
  immunity under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and
  seizures, and, where an examination of its books is not authorized by
  an act of Congress, a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production of
  practically all of its books and papers is as indefensible as a search
  warrant would be if couched in similar terms.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Similarly, in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/221/361/case.html" rel="noreferrer">Wilson v. United States</a>, 221 U.S. 361,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the constitutional privilege against testifying against himself cannot
  be raised for his personal benefit by an officer of the corporation
  having the documents in his possession.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>...</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>An officer of a corporation cannot refuse to produce documents of a
  corporation on the ground that they would incriminate him simply
  because he himself wrote or signed them, and this even if indictments
  are pending against him.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Likewise, <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/694/case.html" rel="noreferrer">United States v. White</a>, 322 U.S. 694 ("The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is essentially a personal one, applying only to natural individuals") and <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/417/85/" rel="noreferrer">Bellis v. United States</a>, 417 U.S. 85: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination held not
  available to member of dissolved law partnership who had been
  subpoenaed by a grand jury to produce the partnership's financial
  books and records, since the partnership, though small, had an
  institutional identity and petitioner held the records in a
  representative, not a personal, capacity. The privilege is "limited to
  its historic function of protecting only the natural individual from
  compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or personal
  records."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So only natural persons can plead the fifth.</p>
