I may be wrong (not often) but I thought you cannot be viacriously liable for a criminal offence commited by an employee, you can aid and abet I would tend to agree but it sort of depends on how you look at it. An employer can be held vicariously liable for the criminal act or offence in a subsequent civil action e.g. If a bank clerk defrauds a customer during the course of their work (a criminal act) the bank can and almost certainly will be found liable for compensating the customer. On the other hand. If a 'minor' goes into a supermarket and buys some cigarettes (underage) I understand that this is a criminal offence, and believe that it is the supermarket who is prosecuted rather than the employee. Arguably this might be seen as being vicariously liable for the offence per se, although it might well be merely a result of the way that the relevant legislation is constructed. However, I can't help bu think that it would be bordering on 'fantastical' to think that an employer would be found criminally liable for an employees drinking and driving on the basis that they had been able to claim for alcohol on expenses. Being slightly flippant, how would it work? Fred drinks and drives and gets caught, John the managing director gets the driving ban?