犯罪概念形式与实质的理论建构

犯罪概念的形式与实质,是刑法理论犯罪界说的焦点,并且由此涉及到对于罪刑法定原则的贯彻。在刑法规范的框架内,犯罪的形式界定与实质界定并不是冲突的;大陆法系、英美法系犯罪成立条件的形式也贯穿着实质的判断。犯罪实质与形式的划分,既是立法实际的复写,也是理论分析的必要。行为的犯罪评价可以通过肯定判断与否定判断来具体实现。基于犯罪的“形式与实质双面统一”的理念,犯罪概念与罪刑法定原则具有形式与内容的统一。     

探索企业犯罪司法治理新模式

在美国,缓起诉协议是指检察官基于特定事由,与被追诉对象签订协议,对其暂时不予起诉,并要求其在规定的考察期内充分履行协议内容的制度。对企业适用缓起诉协议,既有利于节约司法资源,也有利于维护社会公共利益,避免对涉案企业提起公诉可能导致其破产倒闭,实现国家、社会和企业多方共赢的最佳局面。我国检察机关在办理企业犯罪案件时,可以在现行法律框架下,探索"不起诉+行政处罚+检察建议"的综合治理模式,并逐步探索适用于企业犯罪的附条件不起诉制度,寻求惩治企业犯罪与保护社会公共利益的平衡。     

Parental Criminality, Family Violence and Intergenerational Transmission of Crime Within a Birth Cohort

Previous studies documented that crime is heavily concentrated in families. However, many studies relied on relatively small samples, often males and information on criminal involvement was self-reported. The present study investigates: (1) the prevalence of arrests in three generations; (2) the concentration of offenders and arrests within families; (3) the relationships between arrests among the relatives; (4) the relationship between arrests and family violence. A complete cohort of the families in which a child was born in a Dutch city was selected, and the arrests of all known family members (siblings, parents and grandparents) were investigated. Results showed that 7.2 % of the mothers and 18 % of the fathers had been arrested. The likelihood of parental arrests was related to the likelihood of grandparental arrests. There was clear evidence for assortative mating: when the mother was arrested, the likelihood that the father was arrested was increased with a factor five. Maternal arrests were also related to arrests of her parents-in-law. Arrests are heavily concentrated within families, 7.8 % of the families account for 52.3 % of the suspects. Arrests in family members constitute a major risk factor for poor developmental outcomes, such as criminal behavior. At the time of birth, it is possible to use information on arrests to select children who are at relatively high risk for the target of prevention efforts.Implications for prevention policies are discussed.     

Introduction: White-Collar and Corporate Crime in Asia

In this introduction to this special issue of the Journal we broadly consider the problem of white-collar and corporate crime in Asia. Official reports from China show the pervasiveness of current problems and the inherent dangers underlying continued economic growth and reforms. We also consider evidence bearing on the idea that Japan’s remarkably low rate of common crime is likely eclipsed by the level of white-collar and corporate crime, and briefly discuss the institutionalization of economic crime in South Korea. Issues related to the lack of study of white-collar and corporate lawbreaking in Asia are also addressed. Finally, we introduce the papers and topics of this special issue, which include comparative research on cybercrime, the enforcement of intellectual property violations, accounting fraud, financial crime, and offenses in the mutual fund industry.     

The Profits of Recognition: A Praxeological Approach to Corporate Crime

This paper offers a methodological intervention into the study and understanding of regulation and compliance with respect to corporate crime. We advocate Pierre Bourdieu’s “praxeological” sociology as the bases for what we hold is an innovative model of regulation and compliance. The praxeological or relational approach offers structural analyses that take seriously the constructivist fixation with meaning, subjectivity, and perception without succumbing to the limitations of an interactionist conception of power. We first show theoretical affinities between the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Louis Althusser in order to highlight their shared concern with subject formation and their respective conceptions of “mis/recognition”. As this provides us with the theoretical basis of a more robust theory of regulation and compliance than is commonly found within the corporate crime literature, we argue that studies of corporate wrongdoing would benefit from rethinking the conceptions of compliance that currently shape corporate crime scholarship. We then demonstrate the benefits of this praxeological approach to regulation and compliance through discussion of the state’s efforts to discipline corporations through criminal law in Canada and the United Kingdom.     

论单位犯罪的刑事责任

我国刑法的通说将“经单位集体讨论或单位负责人决定实施的危害社会的行为”作为单位犯罪的核心要件。但是 ,这种理解具有难以划清单位代表或机关成员的犯罪和单位自身犯罪之间的界限、扩大或缩小单位负刑事责任的范围、不符合现实社会中的单位犯罪的实际情况、无法适用于规模较大的现代企业等弊端。在追究单位犯罪的刑事责任时 ,应从追究单位自身固有的责任角度出发 ,除关注单位集体决定和单位负责人的决定之外 ,还应考虑单位的目标、业务范围、规章制度、防范措施等单位自身制度方面的情况。这样 ,才能准确地把握单位的真实意志 ,正确地认定和处理现实中所发生的单位犯罪。     

政府犯罪：研究国家国际犯罪的新视角

基于国际社会面对"国家犯罪"与国家刑事责任的争论,简要介绍政府犯罪观念产生的背景、初步概念、独立性及政府刑事责任双罚制;着重分析政府犯罪与国家犯罪的关系;得出尽管政府在国家不法行为和国际犯罪中扮演重要的角色,但政府犯罪不能完全等同于国家犯罪这一结论.在现有的国家责任体系中,建立政府刑事责任制度,具有法理和实践层面的可行性,符合国际社会现实状况.     

单位犯罪存在范围的批判性反思

市场经济的进一步发展催生出了更多的单位犯罪,我国1997年《刑法》正式将单位确定为犯罪主体,这对于打击单位犯罪具有里程碑式的意义。但是,由于立法层面上没有兼顾单位犯罪与自然人犯罪之间的逻辑平衡,加之刑法理论界相关研究的匮乏,导致在司法层面上对单位犯罪的认定各行其是,以致使得刑事司法难以应对诸多的新型单位犯罪。因此,针对单位犯罪研究与司法操作的混乱局面,深入探究单位犯罪与自然人犯罪的关系,进而全面思索刑事立法对于单位犯罪加以干预范围的明确化和视角转换问题,对于完善单位犯罪刑法规制体系具有立法和理论研究的必要性和前瞻性。     

Abetting a Crime: A New Approach

Law and Philosophy - In “Abetting a Crime,” Husak puzzles over what, exactly, abettors are held liable for. Having (correctly) dismissed the proposal that derivative liability can...     

Assaults Against Inspectors: The Dangers in Enforcing Corporate Crime

This survey of regulatory inspectors reveals a surprising number of threats and assaults being made against inspectors in the course of enforcing regulatory provisions. Contrary to conventional images of regulatory enforcement, inspectors in some agencies face violent resistance from regulatory offenders that is similar to the violent resistance encountered by police officers. These findings provide support for the contention that regulatory enforcement and policing should be conceptualized as overlapping forms of law enforcement rather than as distinct governmental activities.     

单位人格在单位犯罪中的定罪和处刑功能研究

单位是我国刑法规定的犯罪主体之一,单位刑事责任的承担是有别于自然人这个犯罪主体的。本文以单位人格的内涵和法律特征为立足点,结合我国的法律及司法解释的相关规定,论证了单位人格在单位犯罪中的定罪和处刑功能。单位人格的定罪功能分为消极的定罪功能和积极的定罪功能;单位人格的处刑功能存在着一种典型表现形式和三种非典型表现形式。     

重塑董事范畴:从形式主义迈向实质主义

我国公司法对董事范畴的界定奉行形式主义,仅承认经过选任所产生的形式董事.该种形式主义的董事界定路径存在明显短板:无法涵盖存在选任瑕疵的董事、失格董事、逾期董事乃至于非为董事但为董事行为者,支配或影响公司行为的幕后主体更是在董事责任的射程之外.在我国公司股权集中的公司治理实践中,形式董事易于受到控股股东或实际控制人的不当影响而失却其固有价值,进而沦为公司治理中的花瓶.相较于形式主义的董事范畴,实质主义的董事范畴能够全面覆盖各类董事的外延类型,锚定我国公司治理中控股股东或实际控制人的不当影响及其责任边界,避免强化控股股东义务对公司组织体产生的过度干涉,夯实董事在公司治理中的核心地位.我国公司法修改应当着力于建构包括事实董事和影子董事在内的实质董事范畴,共同与形式董事构成完整的董事类型体系.对事实董事的界定应当建立在我国董事职权的本土规范基础之上,排除非属于履行董事职权的行为.对影子董事的认定应当重在认定行为人操纵公司董事的行为,并放弃对公司董事会的控制要件.符合前述构成条件的实质董事,与形式董事负担同等法律责任,以厘清股东与公司的行为边界,淳化公司治理体系.     

The Discourse of Criminality: From Beccaria to Postmodernism

The use of discourse in criminological thought and writing is touted as though it is a recent event; building off the work of postmodernism In reality, however, the use of discourse in addressing criminological concepts goes back to the earliest works in criminology (although it was not referred to as discourse at that time). This article discusses the history of discourse in criminality, focusing specifically on Beccaria and Lombroso. Application for current use of discourse is suggested as a way of making postmodernist writing perhaps more useful to a wider audience. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

论公司犯罪的刑事责任构造

公司犯罪是公司作为主体实施的犯罪。公司犯罪的刑事责任表现为双层结构:一层是刑事责任要件,由刑事义务、归责能力和归责要素组成;另一层是公司的刑事责任分担,包括分担的理论解说和分担原则解释。公司的何等人员应当承担刑事责任,需要运用过错和职位两个规则,并结合各国公司治理结构进行判断。     

刑法应设立单位贷款诈骗罪

在市场经济条件下,刑法不将单位规定为贷款诈骗罪的主体显然是不妥当的,也明显不符合司法实践的需要.对于单位贷款诈骗行为,对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员可以直接追究贷款诈骗罪的刑事责任.从近年来我国刑法立法趋势看,刑法修正案对于确实属于以单位名义实施的、体现单位意志、违法所得又归单位所有的单位经济犯罪均设立单位犯罪.我国立法机关应该通过刑法修正案方式设立单位贷款诈骗罪.     

Towards a Political Economy of Reform, Regulation and Corporate Crime

This paper focuses on the passage and enforcement of laws regulating the corporate sector, specifying patterns which seem to emerge from this literature in the major English speaking democracies.
The creation of regulatory laws, the typical resistance by the industry and the state, and the crucial role of crises in the successful passage of laws are examined first. The patterns which law enforcement follows, and the key role of the regulatory agency in shaping these, are delineated next. The theoretical implications of these empirically based generalizations are then set out.
The author argues that neither the pluralist nor the mainstream Marxist analyses adequately explain the very real progress that has occurred over the past 400 years in containing corporate crime, because it has happened largely in spite of rather than because of laws and regulatory activity. Real reform resulted because ongoing struggles forged a change at the ideological level, and this in turn led to improvements at the level of production. By raising the price of legitimacy for corporations in a particular nation-state, prolaterian groups and their allies can create the conditions for change. Law and regulatory agencies have been of secondary importance, it is argued, in the struggle to restrain the predatory behavior of the corporate sector.     

侵犯商业秘密罪罪过形式探析

侵犯商业秘密罪是现行刑法增设的一个新罪名,关于本罪的罪过形式,目前在我国刑法学界争议较大,从而直接影响到司法实践中对本罪的正确认定和处理,妨碍了刑法社会保障功能的正常发挥。以下笔者拟就此问题略作探讨,以就教于方家。一、侵犯商业秘密罪罪过形式争议及探讨关于侵犯商业秘密罪的罪过形式,刑法理论界存在着几种不同的观点:(1)认为本罪的主观方面是故意,而且只能是直接故意,如果行为人因间接故意、过失而泄露商业秘密的,则不构成本罪;①(2)认为本罪主观方面由故意构成,包括直接故意和间接故意,过失不构成本罪;②(3)认为本罪的主观方面既可以是故意,也可以是过失;③(4)认为侵犯商业秘密的行为,可分为直接侵犯商业秘密的行为和间接侵犯商业秘密的行为,前者主观