Final answer:
A principal is generally not liable for the crimes committed by independent contractors. This is because independent contractors are considered to operate their own businesses and make independent decisions, unlike employees whose actions are directly connected to the principal's business operations.
Step-by-step explanation:
A principal is liable for the crimes of its agent in all of the following scenarios except when: the agent is an independent contractor. Principals are typically liable for the wrongful acts of their agents or employees when such acts are performed within the scope of their employment.
However, principals are generally not liable for the crimes committed by independent contractors because independent contractors are considered to operate their own separate businesses and make their own decisions regarding how to perform work. This differs from an employee, whose actions are more directly a reflection of the business.
It is worth noting that there are exceptions to this rule, such as when a crime is committed by an independent contractor in a highly regulated area or when the principal has specifically directed the independent contractor to perform the criminal act.
The key element is the level of control that the principal has over the actions of the agent, which is usually higher in the case of employees compared to independent contractors. In contrast, when a crime like embezzlement occurs within a corporate structure, it is considered a form of corporate crime, where employees could be using their position to unlawfully appropriate funds.