相对不起诉制度若干问题探析

相对不起诉研究的难点是检察官的裁量权与法官的审查权之间配置平衡问题。在宽严相济的刑事政策指导下,充分发挥检察官行使起诉裁量权的能动性,适度扩大相对不起诉的适用率,解决我国相对不起诉规定的内部冲突,从制度上规范被害人的内部救济程序,并约束法官对相对不起诉审查权,实现轻微犯罪案件在审前程序中有效分流。     

企业合规不起诉法院司法审查的理据、模式和路径

企业合规不起诉由检察机关闭环运作，引发了对检察权异化的担忧以及程序正当性的追问。宪法、刑事诉讼法对法检权力以及相互关系的基本定位，起诉法定主义与便宜主义相结合的诉讼制度，决定了我国检察机关只具有有限的起诉裁量权。对涉嫌重罪的企业直接合规不起诉，逾越了起诉裁量权的范围。企业合规改革需要挖掘法院的角色定位与功能。中国特色的合规不起诉制度，应根据企业犯罪的轻重分别采取附条件不起诉制度和暂缓起诉制度。前者适用于检察机关起诉裁量权范围内涉嫌轻罪的企业，其是否不起诉由检察机关独立决定，无需法院司法审查；后者适用于涉嫌重罪的企业，其是否不起诉需要通过法院司法审查决定。法院的司法审查应是实质性的，是否满足重大社会公共利益的需要以及是否存在预防刑、责任刑的削减是审查的重点。同时，对于已经起诉的涉企犯罪，法院也需要主动进行审查，包括有无事前合规计划以及评估事后合规整改的可行性，并依据企业合规的情况予以妥当处理，以建构企业合规不起诉法院司法审查的制度。     

论我国设立暂缓起诉制度的必要性和可行性

暂缓起诉权从本质上来说是一种检察官的自由裁量权,是检察官起诉裁量权的表现形式之一。伴随着恢复性司法,暂缓起诉制度有了更加长足的发展,它实现的是一种矫正正义,预防犯罪人再犯罪。本文以此为理论基础论述了我国设立暂缓起诉制度的必要性和可行性。     

不起诉裁量权的扩张与制约

我国《刑事诉讼法》对检察官在不起诉决定中的自由裁量权之适用范围规定得很窄。起诉法定主义并不符合刑罚上的教育改造目的,也不利于罪犯改过自新,且浪费有限的司法资源。因此,起诉便宜主义之适用乃历史趋势。我国应通过立法对检察官的不起诉自由裁量权予以扩张,同时规定检察官决定不起诉时应满足的条件和应考量的相关因素,并改革公诉转自诉制度,完善人民监督员制度,从而保证对检察官该项权力的有效制约。     

不起诉裁量权审查机制的本土化构建

检察官不起诉处分因具有司法处分性质而易对诉讼当事人权利产生影响,用之不当则会对起诉法定原则产生冲击。我国目前不起诉率偏低,并不意味着我国检察机关不起诉裁量权小于欧美国家。相当国家为监督制衡不起诉决定,通过"强制起诉程序"、"准起诉程序"、"检察审查会"、"大陪审团"等制度来防范不起诉裁量权的滥用。我国未来的不起诉制度改革可以对重大案件建构起本土化的强制起诉程序,设置专门的检察审查会监督不起诉决定。     

英、德、日不起诉裁量权之比较

不起诉裁量权是检察官所享有的对于存在足够犯罪嫌疑且完全符合起诉条件的案件,可以斟酌决定是否提起公诉的权力。现代各国的立法均赋予了检察官该项权力。但不同法系以及不同国家的法律规定各不相同。作为其中的代表,英、德、日等国的不起诉裁量权制度自身拥有鲜明的特色。通过对这些国家相关法律规定进行比较与研究,从中找寻和发现确立该项制度的原因以及各国之间的差异,能够加深我们对该制度的认识。     

暂缓起诉制度研究

暂缓起诉是检察官行使自由裁量权的一种表现形式,具有暂时性和不确定性。起诉便宜主义、公共利益价值目标、刑罚经济原理是其存在的法理基础。暂缓起诉有利于完善刑事公诉制度,有利于节约司法资源,有利于实现诉讼经济和效益,在整个诉讼制度中占有极其重要的地位。     

对我国相对不起诉制度的反思及完善建议

相对不起诉制度是我国刑事诉讼的基本制度之一,也是现代法治国家根据起诉便宜主义刑事诉讼理念确立的基本制度,该制度赋予了国家刑事控诉机关一定的自由裁量权。本文认为在讲求刑罚个别化、轻刑化和刑罚非犯罪化的今天,一方面要控制犯罪、惩罚犯罪,另一方面,要体现对人权的保障,对诉讼效益的追求,同时,还不能放纵检察官对自由裁量权的滥用。尤其是在我国现行情况下,各项刑事司法制度愈来愈向国际司法准则靠拢,而相对不起诉制度不管是从立法还是从司法实践来看都存在缺陷。因此,对相对不起诉制度予以反思,发掘其价值,实用于法治,不仅理论上十分必要,实践中也势在必行。     

酌定不起诉之现状考察及完善思考

长期以来,司法实践中重视起诉率而忽视酌定不起诉的现状,限制了检察官司法裁量权的行使,淡化了检察机关在刑事诉讼活动中案件过滤、数量调节以及政策调整的审查起诉职能。在当前犯罪态势依然高发,法院审判负担日益加重的背景下,应顺着刑事诉讼法修改的路径,以检察官司法裁量权为视角,重新解读酌定不起诉的立法价值和指导思想,探索酌定不起诉制度的改革完善模式,并以此促进酌定不起诉在整个刑事诉讼过程中的制度价值的全面实现。     

论起诉裁量权

与法官的自由裁量权相比,起诉裁量权是指检察官在审查起诉过程中,对事实清楚,证据确实充分的犯罪案件,基于自由裁量,酌情决定是否起诉的权力。由于各方面的原因,我国法学理论界对起诉裁量权的研究远不如法官的自由裁量权那样充分。起诉裁量权在刑事诉讼中发挥着前承侦查、后启审判的重要作用,在很大程度上决定着诉讼程序是否继续进行,因此,起诉裁量权具有很高的制度价值,尤其是在司法体制改革的大潮中,研究起诉裁量权制度更具有重要的现实意义和深远的历史意义。目前,我国的起诉裁量权制度存在瑕疵,行使效果不如人意,亟需要进一步改革和完善。     

Causal factors of corporate crime in Taiwan: qualitative and quantitative findings

Street crimes are a primary concern of most criminologists in Taiwan. In recent years, however, crimes committed by corporations have increased greatly in this country. Employing the empirical approach to collect data about causal factors of corporate crime, the research presented in this article is the first systematic empirical study concerning corporate crime in Taiwan. The research sample was selected from a corporation with a criminal record of pollution caused by the release of toxic chemicals into the environment and a corporation with no criminal record. Questionnaire survey and interviews of corporate employees and managers were conducted, and secondary data were collected from official agencies. This research indicated the causal factors of corporate crime as follows: the failure of government regulation, lack of corporate self-regulation, lack of public concern about corporate crime, corporate mechanistic structure, and the low self-control tendency of corporate managers.     

Including tourists in crime rate calculations for new casino jurisdictions: What difference does it make?

One way to analyze the effect of tourism on crime is to include the average number of visitors in the denominator used to calculate community crime rates. Modified crime rates were computed for 7 new casino jurisdictions and compared with traditional crime rates based on the resident population. A preand postcasino comparison indicates a minority of Part I crimes increased significantly regardless of which crime rate was used. While a majority of Part II crimes rose significantly when using the traditional crime rate, fewer than half the modified crime rates displayed any gains. It appears that a large concentration of casinos with a concomitant increase in tourism leads to an increase in Part II crimes. This project was supported by Grant No. 98-IJ-CX-0037 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

Repositioning the corporate criminal: comparing and contrasting corporate criminal liability in Canada and Finland

ABSTRACT

Over the past two decades, a number of states in the Global North have introduced laws aimed at holding corporations criminally liable. While there is an important literature examining these legal regimes there is a paucity of comparative work interrogating the different political struggles and processes leading to corporate criminal liability (CCL) legislation. This paper addresses this lacuna by comparing and contrasting the development of CCL in Canada and Finland. By scrutinizing the law reform processes in each jurisdiction, the paper documents how CCL emerged under different conjunctures in each country, yet were shaped similarly by hegemonic beliefs in the non-criminal status of corporation, the importance of advancing private enterprise and established jurisprudence. Of particular note are the ways in which dominant notions of legal individualism and the universal legal subject constrained legislative efforts to hold corporations criminally to account therein preventing corporate misconduct from being processed as “real” crimes.     

中国企业赴美并购的法律风险及其防范对策

中国企业在赴美并购过程中总存在着各种各样的法律风险。中国国有企业赴美并购时应高度重视美国的国家安全审查机制,清晰地突出国有企业的商事主体性质。而美国外资委员会引入听证会程序,应充分听取中国投资者的意见,放弃投资保护主义。中国企业要熟悉美国的公司并购规则与治理规则,明确目标公司选择符合本公司及其股东利益最大化的收购要约而并非现金出价最多的要约,是美国公司并购的常态。中美双方加快双边投资保护协定的谈判进程,就企业的国有化条款而言,应采取充分的市场化补偿标准。我国政府鼓励企业赴美并购,可将核准制改为备案制。要加快建立健全海外投资纠纷的仲裁机制,提高我国仲裁机构的国际竞争力。     

美国《横向合并指南》的最新修订及启示

美国司法部与联邦贸易委员会于2010年8月联合发布了新版《横向合并指南》,新指南进一步淡化了结构主义色彩,打破了1992年指南所创设的五步分析法,相关市场界定的重要性也被大大降低,指南的制度设计趋向一个事实为基、更富弹性的分析框架。中国应借鉴美国的成熟经验,尽快研究制定横向合并指南,从"反竞争效果认定制度群"、"反竞争效果抗辩制度群"以及"反竞争效果补救制度群"三大方面来把握横向合并指南的内容。中国应注意平衡合并审查制度的确定性与灵活性,加强合并审查中法学与经济学的融合,并积极创建合并案件跟访制度。     

Advancing Direct Corporate Accountability in International Human Rights Law: The Role of State-Owned Enterprises

Resorting to the immensely state-centric international legal system to regulate corporate human rights abuses is often viewed as inadequate. Among many proposals aiming at filling the international regulatory gaps, imposing international human rights obligations directly on corporations is a bold one, which, due to profound doctrinal and practical challenges, is yet to be materialized. However, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), given their prima facie “state–business nexus” that blurs the traditional public–private divide, might provide a renewed opportunity to push forward the “direct international corporate accountability” campaign. This study investigates whether SOEs represent a golden chance for direct corporate accountability in the international legal regime. This study provides a legal analysis supported by case law, and by comparative and empirical research when appropriate. After providing a definitional account of SOEs, it examines the legal status of SOEs under international law. Then, in the reverse direction, it proceeds to explore if the state–business nexus of SOEs as non-state actors could render the argument toward direct international corporation accountability more convincing. Major findings reveal that SOEs, to a limited extent, represent a renewed opportunity to rethink direct corporate accountability under international law.     

What motivates the engineers to patent? A study at the Chinese R&D laboratories of a European MNC

Corporate R&D engineers, being usually the initiators of a patent, are important contributors to the patenting performance of their employers. Hence, patenting motives of R&D engineers encompass an interesting and promising research field. However, the literature on patenting motivation of the engineers in the corporate context is scarce. We apply self-determination theory on human motivation to investigate patenting motives of a sample of local R&D engineers in China employed by a European-based multi-national corporation. Factor analysis reveals four groups of motives: “reward and recognition”, “reputation and promotion”, “making a contribution” and “interest and sense of achievement”. The results of multiple hierarchical regression show the influence of working climate on “making a contribution” and “interest and sense of achievement” motivation factors. Implications for patent management are discussed.

     

Bail decision making and pretrial detention

Bail practices became the target of reform efforts during the 1960's and 1970's not only because of issues concerning economic bias against indigent defendants but also because of criticism of the bail decision itself. Questions were raised about the appropriate uses of bail (e.g., to prevent flight or pretrial crime, or to inflict pretrial punishment), the rationality of the criteria relied on by judges in deciding bail, and the discretionary allocation of pretrial detention through high cash bail. In this article, case law and statutes governing bail practices in the United States are reviewed first to characterize the ambiguous legal framework from within which bail judges must operate. Then bail decisions in a large urban jurisdiction are analyzed as a case study to discover the factors most influential in determining pretrial release options. It is inferred that, even after years of reform, community-ties measures do not play a major role in the bail decision or the determination of pretrial custody; rather, the nature of the charged offense appears most influential. A finding of special significance is that a large proportion of these decisions could not be explained systematically (i.e., a large share of variance remained unexplained). The article concludes by suggesting a guidelines approach to bail that could narrow disparity in bail options and the use of detention, enhance the rationality of the decision process and contribute to more equitable pretrial practices.Revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1978. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Statistics Division of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to the Criminal Justice Research Center. Points of view or opinions stated are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

Pressing for Sentence? An Examination of the New Zealand Crown Prosecutor’s Role in Sentencing

Prosecutors are among the most powerful actors in any criminal justice system. Their exercise of discretion, however, has not been subjected to the same level of public and empirical scrutiny as other parts of the criminal justice system. To deepen understanding, I empirically explore for the first time the form, function and limits of the New Zealand Crown Prosecutor’s role at the sentencing stage of the criminal justice process. Semi-structured interviews of a non-representative sample of ten Crown Prosecutors are analysed using Hawkins’ framework of “surround”, “field” and “frame”. Findings suggest that whilst New Zealand’s regime shares history, principles, and structural features with English and Australian regimes, it goes further to permit Crown Prosecutors a more assertive role in sentencing. In the ‘surround’, populist and managerial pressures create frustration, strain, and concern. Changes to funding models suggest the potential for unjust sentencing outcomes has increased. The “surround” also intrudes upon and transforms decision-making “frames”. The opinions and presence of stakeholders influences decisions and practices at office and individual levels. Justice may be reactive, forward-looking, or negotiated depending on the particular mix of individuals involved – something accentuated by the regime’s privatised and decentralised form. Findings also suggest that Crown Prosecutors “frame” their role in occupational terms. The lack of interest of universities, professional bodies, and law and policy-makers in offering or requiring prosecutorial training before entry to the role is influential. This renders decision-making more susceptible to pressures in the “surround” and “field”, and increases variation in decision-making “frames”.     

合规视野下的企业刑事责任问题

在企业的刑事归责问题上,西方国家传统上遵循的是以企业员工的行为和主观过错推论企业行为和主观过错的原则。如今,这一归责方式正在受到普遍的质疑和挑战,一种建立在“组织责任”基础上的理论正在兴起,并为企业合规引入企业归责原则确立了理论上的依据。我国刑法所确立的单位犯罪制度,面临着单位犯罪与自然人犯罪“入罪标准不统一”“同罪不同罚”,单位所承担的刑事责任与行政责任难以保持均衡,以及认定单位主观意志较为困难等方面的问题。唯有建立“企业独立意志理论”,将单位视为一种独立的生命有机体,承认其具有实施独立行为和具有独立主观意志的能力,才能走出上述困境,并将企业合规融入单位归责原则之中。