Although courts have generally endorsed the contextual, purposive approach to attribution, there remains significant uncertainty in its application. The recent Singapore Court of Appeal's decision in Red Star raised an issue that was hitherto unaddressed by the Singapore and UK courts: whether the claim brought by a solvent company against its fraudulent employee should be barred by the illegality defence where the person who was essentially the sole director and shareholder consented to the employee's fraud. Underlying the simplicity of the facts and issue are difficult questions of law and policy that have important implications for the law of corporate attribution. This article argues that the reasoning and result in Red Star are questionable. In doing so it critically examines the key principles and policies that are at stake and concludes by suggesting a different approach.

中文翻译：

---

归因：有新争议吗？

尽管法院总体上认可了归因于上下文的，有目的的方法，但其应用仍然存在很大的不确定性。新加坡上诉法院最近在红星案中的裁决提出了一个迄今新加坡和英国法院尚未解决的问题：溶剂公司针对其欺诈雇员的索赔是否应被非法辩护所禁止，该人实质上是唯一的董事和股东同意该雇员的欺诈行为。事实和问题的简单性背后是法律和政策的难题，这些难题对公司归因法具有重要意义。本文认为，“红星”的推理和结果有问题。在此过程中，它批判性地研究了关键的原则和政策，并提出了不同的方法作为结论。