The Historical Development of Corporate Criminal Liability

The application of criminal liability to corporations grew out of a minor common law doctrine that masters were criminally liable if their servants created a public nuisance by throwing something out of the house onto the street. The expansion of that doctrine to full corporate criminal liability was primarily the result of judicial interpretation of common law and existing statutory laws, rather than the result of any-deliberate legislative action Civil law countries, lacking the tradition of judicial interpretation, have never developed the concept of corporate criminality. Corporate criminal liability will probably continue to expand in common law countries, regardless of its merits.     

Accountability for Corporate Human Rights Abuses: Lessons from the Possible Exercise of Dutch National Criminal Jurisdiction over Multinational Corporations

In the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, little emphasis has been put on the criminal law as a mechanism to hold corporations to account. From a doctrinal perspective, the main stumbling block for a more intensive use of the criminal law appears to be how to establish jurisdiction and liability with regard to corporate involvement in human rights violations in transnational supply-chains. On closer inspection, however, domestic criminal law offers surprising, although largely untested opportunities in this respect. Criminal liability could notably be based on violations of a corporate duty of care violation, whereas jurisdiction could, relatively non-controversially, be grounded on the principles of territoriality, nationality, and universality. The Dutch criminal law system is used as a case-study in this article.     

Criminal Liability of Directors of a Private Limited Company Seated in Germany

During the last decade, a great number of German businesses formed private limited companies by shares in England and transferred the company’s real seat to Germany in order to avoid the minimum capital rules for the German limited liability company. The discrepancy between the place of registration and the real seat leads to questions about the criminal liability of company directors under English and German law. This article shows that English courts have jurisdiction over certain offences regardless of the place the director acted. In particular, he may be convicted for failing to comply with statutory duties under the Companies Act 2006 as well as false accounting or false statements under Theft Act 1968 ss. 17, 19. With respect to German law, the company law reform of 2008 explicitly imposed the duty to file for insolvency on directors of foreign corporations. Also, the criminal offence for failing to file for insolvency in § 15a (4) of the Insolvency Code is compatible with the freedom of establishment under European law. If the director causes a financial loss to the company by breaching his director’s duties, he may be convicted for breach of trust under § 266 of the Criminal Code regardless of the fact that the relevant duties are regulated by English law. The German Federal Supreme Court recently held that recourse to English company law in order to establish a criminal breach of trust does not violate the principle of legal certainty in Article 103 (2) of the Basic Law. Furthermore, German bankruptcy offences may apply if the director violates the authoritative English accounting standards.     

Vicarious liability and criminal prosecutions for regulatory offences

The parameters of vicarious liability of corporations for the conduct of their employees, especially in the context of provisions that criminalise breaches of regulatory provisions, are complex. The decision of Bell J in ABC Developmental Learning Centres Pty Ltd v Wallace [2006] VSC 171 raises starkly the potential unfairness of an approach which converts criminal liability of corporations too readily into absolute liability, irrespective of the absence of any form of proven culpability. The author queries whether fault should not be brought back in some form to constitute a determinant of criminal liability for corporations.     

Legislating for corporate criminal liability in Finland: 22-year long debate revisited

The criminal liability of corporations has been the subject of long debates in many countries. This article scrutinizes the 22-year long genesis of corporate criminal liability legislation in Finland. We are interested in unveiling the turns of the law-making process, and in investigating the struggle between various interest groups from a socio-historical perspective. The research data consist of legislative documents such as committee memorandums and written opinions, and the method of inquiry is content analysis. Our study reveals that the core issue of the process became whether jurisprudential principles should be changed in accordance with societal change or whether they are essentially immutable. The Act of Corporate Criminal Liability took effect in 1995, but its coverage was weakened by imposing discretionary sentencing and leaving employment offences outside of its purview. The initial aim and the very justification of the law—to place liability where it belongs—was achieved only in principle. Furthermore, the final outcome of the 1995 law served to actually prevent corporate misconducts from being processed as crimes.     

Corporations as Moral Agents: Trade-Offs in Criminal Liability and Human Rights for Corporations

This article argues that a common way of defending corporate criminal liability creates a dilemma: it provides a strong justification for giving human rights to corporations. This result follows from approaches to punishment and human rights which predicate each on the status of moral agency. In short, if corporations are moral agents in a sufficient sense to attract criminal liability, they are eligible holders of human rights. The article also discusses the doctrinal application of this philosophical claim. Drawing on US jurisprudence, it illustrates how the European Court of Human Rights might deploy corporate moral agency as a theoretical foundation for its otherwise weakly-reasoned attribution of human rights to corporations. If proponents of corporate criminal liability are dissatisfied with these conclusions, they face difficult policy trade-offs: they must abandon the doctrine, or adopt alternative approaches to punishment or human rights.     

The Concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise and Domestic Modes of Liability for Parties to a Crime: A Comparison of German and English Law

The concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) has becomea useful tool in international criminal law. It allows courtsto hold individuals criminally liable for group activities towhich they have contributed in a criminally relevant way. Theconcept allows for an attribution of criminal responsibilityof unforeseen consequences of such group activities, and itseems to enable the prosecution and the courts to extend criminalliability to high-level perpetrators that use subordinated personsfor their criminal aims. The advantages of such a tool are obvioussince the crimes under international criminal law are mostlyof a systematic, large-scale and collective character, whiledomestic criminal law mainly deals with less complex crimesthat are normally committed by individuals who can easily belinked to the crime. Due to this empirical or criminologicalfact, it seems logical that the normal modes of liability forparties to a crime used in domestic criminal law need to beadapted, and that a rather extensive assignment of criminalliability for secondary parties is justified in internationalcriminal law. This article seeks to question this assumptionby undertaking a comparative analysis of domestic modes of liability.The author aims to show, on the one hand, to what extent theconcept of JCE is in line with the general concept of partiesto a crime in domestic criminal law. On the other hand, theauthor argues that abandoning the idea of JCE as an independentmode of liability may lead to better compliance with the principlesof legality and individual criminal responsibility and therebyincrease the legitimacy of international criminal law.     

严格责任论:以英美刑法为中心

刑法学界有观点认为,严格责任是结果责任、客观归罪的典型,应予彻底否定。刑事严格责任起源于英美法国家,我国《刑法》中并无这一概念。要对刑事严格责任进行评判,应当充分了解其存在的背景、内涵及其价值基础,否则,作出的结论往往是不尽妥当的。英美刑法中,严格责任的适用受到了种种条件的限制,不同于绝对责任,更非结果责任或者客观归罪,有其存在的价值基础。     

The Advent of Preventive Criminal Law: An Erosion of the Traditional Criminal Law?

Criminal law in contemporary societies is undergoing a transformation or according to some, even a paradigm shift. The reach of criminal law is now extended to terrains that were hitherto immune to criminalization. These new forms of criminalization. in post-heroic risk societies are targeting conduct well before it causes a harm. The prime examples of this preventive criminalization. are pre-inchoate offences, crimes of possession of “innocent” objects and crimes of abstract endangerment. The common trait of these offences is that they enable the so-called preponing criminal liability (Vorverlagerung), through which the earliest of preparatory acts, neutral, everyday activities such as merely standing around or merely possessing may well fall within the reach of criminal law. This phenomenon is now taking place virtually everywhere considered by many as an erosion of the traditional post-enlightenment criminal law model. Yet, proponents of the preventive criminal law are suggesting that such laws are needed in order to avert risks (terrorist attacks, for instance) while they are at preparation phase. There is, therefore, a tension between the traditional criminal law and new security interests that pose new questions which need to be addressed by a meticulous analysis. In this article I shall try to deal with following questions: Whether these preventive offences are inherently incompatible with the rule of law? How far a law-abiding nation can go in criminalizing preparatory acts? Are there any promising constraining constitutional principles or instances that delimit preventive criminalization?     

论“因侵权而犯罪”与“因犯罪而侵权”

刑事侵权具备"刑事责任"、"侵权责任"双重责任属性,由于刑、民责任在发展进程、互动的路径及效果上的不同,可分化为"因侵权而犯罪"与"因犯罪而侵权",即刑事侵权二分论。"因侵权而犯罪"具有民事责任倾向性,"因犯罪而侵权"具有刑事责任倾向性,解决刑事侵权责任问题须兼顾侵权责任法与刑事法的正义要求。刑民二分论有坚实的法律基础,符合法律价值基础的要求,当刑事责任与侵权责任进行内容接轨与功能互补时,可在实践中实现预期的价值目标和社会效益的最大化。     

论自动驾驶汽车生产者的刑事责任

自动驾驶汽车是人类研发、制造、使用和管理的智能产品,不是犯罪主体或刑事责任主体。在自动驾驶汽车自主控制状态下发生交通事故的,其生产者、使用者和其他人员难以按照我国现有刑法的罪名定罪处罚。除非道路交通安全法和刑法有专门的规定,驾驶位人员不接管汽车或接管后无力改变交通事故结果的,不构成交通肇事罪或其他管理过失犯罪。驾驶位人员的注意义务是阻止自动驾驶汽车自主控制下发生交通事故,其注意义务不应过高。允许的风险、紧急避险理论不能为自动驾驶汽车紧急路况处理算法的生产与应用提供合法、合理的解决方案,生产者遵守算法安全标准仅可以使生产行为合法化。鉴于现行刑法不适应自动驾驶汽车应用的特性,我国应当建立以生产者全程负责为中心的新刑事责任体系,使之在自动驾驶汽车生产和应用两个阶段承担安全管理责任,生产者拒不履行自动驾驶汽车应用安全管理义务且情节严重的,应当承担刑事责任。     

Reflections on <Emphasis Type="Italic">Prince</Emphasis>, Public Welfare Offenses, <Emphasis Type="Italic">American Cyanamid</Emphasis>, and the Wisdom of the Common Law

The fundamental requirement of Anglo-American criminal law is that crime must consist of the concurrence of a guilty mind—a mens rea—with a guilty act—an actus reus. And yet, the criminal law is shot through with discordant lumps of strict liability—crimes for which no mens rea is required. Ignoring the conventional normative objections to this aberration, I distinguish two different types of strict criminal liability: the type that arose at common law and the type associated with the public welfare offenses that are the product of twentieth and twenty-first century legislation. Using famous cases as exemplars, I analyze the two types of strict liability, and then examine the purposes served and incentives created by subjecting individuals to strict liability. I conclude that common law strict liability is rational in that it advances the purposes of the criminal law, while the public welfare offenses are at best pointless and at worst counterproductive. I suggest that in this respect the common law contains more wisdom than the results of the legislative process.     

行业协会限制竞争行为的责任制度研究

我国《反垄断法》第46条对行业协会限制竞争行为的责任规定十分粗疏,重构责任体系实属必要。我国行业协会限制竞争行为的责任制度不应仅仅限于行政责任,而且还应当包括民事责任、刑事责任和自律责任。此外,责任追究应当根据行业协会、成员企业以及理事会在组织和实施限制竞争行为中所扮演的角色而应有所区别对待,同时执法机关有权根据行业协会及其成员企业配合检查的态度和情形而宽严相济。     

犯罪心理学研究的核心问题——刑事责任的心理基础

在“刑事一体化”背景下 ,犯罪心理学的研究应以行为人承担刑事责任的心理基础为核心。对故意犯罪而言 ,刑事责任的心理基础主要表现为行为人恶劣的犯罪动机和对法律的蔑视态度 ;就过失犯罪而言 ,刑事责任的心理基础主要表现为行为人人格的缺陷和对法律的轻视态度。因此 ,犯罪动机和犯罪人格是行为人承担刑事责任的主要主观依据 ,也是犯罪心理的具体表现和核心内容。     

期待可能性理论初探

期待可能性是指根据行为时的具体情况,能够期待行为人实施合法行为的可能性。期待可能性理论有其人性基础,体现了刑法的谦抑。期待可能性在犯罪论中的地位应置于责任论中,责任能力、违法性的意识的可能性和期待可能性都是责任要素。期待可能性理论的引进,可以使我国刑法理论中的许多问题得到合理的解释,对刑事司法的指导意义也是明显的。     

“扒窃”入刑:贴身禁忌与行为人刑法

"扒窃"入刑的法理构建,是被害人教义学与行为人刑法分工合作的结果。一方面,应从被害人视角出发,在不法构成要件层面进行扒窃概念的建构;"公共场所"与"随身携带"并非界定扒窃构成要件的核心要素;应以"贴身禁忌"作为扒窃概念的思想基础。扒窃是指侵入他人贴身范围、盗窃他人贴身携带的财物。随身携带的财物,如果不在贴身范围内,不能成为扒窃的对象;得到允许进入他人贴身范围后实施盗窃的,不构成扒窃。另一方面,应当发掘立法原意中的行为人刑法思想,在责任阶段限缩扒窃犯罪的打击范围;利用功能性的责任概念,在责任层面视情形给予扒窃的偶犯予以责任的减免。     

刑法中的推定责任制度

推定责任是严格责任的演进结果。严格责任经历了一个由绝对责任向相对责任的渐进过程。现代意义的严格责任实质上多为符合犯罪构成理论和罪刑法定原则的推定责任。我国刑法的规定是推定责任存在的根据 ,它寓意于法律语境和立法主旨之中。推定责任主要有危险型犯罪、奸淫型犯罪、持有型犯罪和腐败型犯罪。推定责任的刑事制度主要包括举证责任倒置和期待不能的免责理由两项内容。根据刑事法治的需要 ,构建我国刑法的推定责任制度已经势在必行     

中国行政刑法的立法缺憾与改进

行政刑法之概念为德国学者所首创,但在不同国家有着不同的内涵与外延.中国的行政刑法是指国家为了维护正常的行政管理活动,实现行政管理目的,规定行政犯罪及其刑事责任的法律规范和劳动教养法律规范的总称.中国的行政刑法立法存在着缺乏与一般行政法条款衔接、缺乏行政违法责任与行政犯罪责任竞合的明确规定、法定刑设置过高、对于法人犯罪的刑罚措施过于单一、劳动教养制度弊端丛生等诸多问题,需要相应地加以改进.认为应当在立法上对行政刑法和行政法规范进行衔接、明确行政违法责任与行政犯罪责任竞合的处理方法、降低行政犯罪的法定刑并废止其死刑、增加对于法人犯罪的刑罚措施并将劳动教养制度司法化.     

Dangerous information: product tampering and poisoning advice in revenge and murder manuals

This paper reviews 18 publications that advocate the use of product tampering and other poisoning methods as techniques for exacting revenge against individuals and corporations, as methods of committing murder, and for other criminal purposes. Several of the particular techniques recommended in these publications subsequently have been used in criminal tampering incidents. The published sources of technical guidance for the would-be tamperer and poisoner are examined in detail to alert forensic scientists, law enforcement authorities, and the food and drug industry to the particular techniques that are being advocated. Possible criminal and civil liability of the publishers and authors is discussed. The author suggests that food and drug retailers consider the wisdom of selling magazines that advertise the availability of revenge and murder manuals advocating product tampering and poisoning, that food and drug manufacturers test the effects on their products of the contaminants that are being recommended, and that investigators be alert to the existence of such manuals and mail-order suppliers of poisons.