There is no doubt that much of our every day life is affected and influenced by corporations and other organizations. In particular, today, more than ever before, the relationship between corporations and human beings can be either direct in the form of employment or even indirect in that corporations operate facilities that are widely used by humans, such as trains and ferries. While it has long been accepted that companies can be held liable for a wide range of offences such as environmental offences or financial offences, the liability of companies in cases involving human casualties has been much more controversial and debatable. This is because the “identification doctrine” used by the prosecution to demonstrate corporate liability in such cases has been proved to be ineffective, especially when large corporations were involved, rendering as such their conviction for manslaughter almost practically impossible. More specifically, the evident procedural hurdles of the “identification doctrine” have led to an increased public opinion that a change was needed, exerting as such pressure on the Parliament to change the law. The response came from the Parliament in 2007 with the enactment of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act.This paper examines whether the Act achieved its main objective to eliminate the procedural deficiencies of the “identification doctrine”, making it, as such, easier to hold large corporations liable in cases involving the death of individuals. It argues that it is doubtful whether such an objective has been achieved and whether the test under the Act will be more effective than the old “identification doctrine”. In particular, it illustrates that, despite the long consultation process before its enactment, the importance of the Act may lie only in the symbolic creation of a statutory offence of “corporate manslaughter”. Finally, it concludes by questioning whether that “symbolic” importance can transcend the Act’s identified deficiencies or whether the Act can be characterized as a “Cadmean Victory” over the problematic “identification doctrine” – a victory which is tantamount to a “defeat”.