Business transactions between corporations and states and non-state actors involved in grave human rights violations present significant challenges to corporate criminal liability. This is particularly evident in cases of “neutral business assistance,” that is, business conduct that appears legitimate on the surface and falls within day-to-day business operations, but nonetheless contributes to the occurrence of the crime. An example of neutral business assistance is selling weapons legally at market rates without an explicit intention to aid criminal activity, even if the weapons are later used in the commission of crimes. In such cases, discerning the point at which an ordinary business transaction becomes a wrongful act of complicity remains a complex and unresolved issue.

The actus reus of complicity requires assistance that has a substantial effect to the crime. Traditionally, the assessment of an accomplice’s wrongfulness—specifically, whether aiding and abetting has a substantial effect on the crime—has been grounded in a narrow factual analysis that primarily emphasizes the gravity of harm resulting from the aiding and abetting. This one-dimensional approach, however, often oversimplifies the ethical complexities of criminal liability. It overlooks broader normative considerations and the positive societal impact of human cooperation. To address this, this Article challenges the prevailing view and introduces a more nuanced methodology to assess the substantial effect of aiding and abetting on a crime across various contexts. By doing so, the Article embraces a broader perspective on criminal wrongfulness, one that takes into account the crucial normative dimension of balancing the harmful effects of aiding and abetting with their corresponding social benefits. In result, the Article puts forth an enriched methodology that transcends the traditional emphasis on the gravity of harm resulting from the aiding and abetting and enables a more holistic evaluation of complicity.