构建我国单位犯罪刑罚体系的思路

我国刑法对单位犯罪中犯罪单位的处罚只规定了罚金刑。单一的罚金刑对于单位犯罪的惩罚和预防均显得有些力不从心。在以自然人为适用对象的刑罚体系基础上,构建以犯罪单位为适用对象的刑罚体系十分必要。其主要由刑事破产、执业禁止和停业整顿等主刑以及罚金、没收财产和剥夺荣誉称号等附加刑两部分构成。     

危险驾驶罪若干问题探析——对《刑法修正案(八)》第22条的解读与展望

《刑法修正案(八)》第22条规定的危险驾驶罪在性质上属于抽象危险犯,该罪的主观方面是故意,客观方面的行为包括追逐竞驶和醉酒驾驶。危险驾驶行为的认定不仅涉及文义解释,还涉及到"情节恶劣"和醉酒状态的认定问题。作为抽象危险犯,该罪也可能存在预备、未遂和中止形态,但从刑法的谦抑性考虑,对其预备、未遂和中止形态应不予刑事处罚。该罪不仅存在共同犯罪问题,还与交通肇事罪和以危险方法危害公共安全罪相关,在司法实践中需予以仔细分析。     

“严打”刑事政策的合理性解读

＂严打＂是在国家的总体发展政策和基本刑事政策指导下的一项具体的刑事政策,其本身具有一定的稳定性与灵活性,而并非一种固定的对严重刑事犯罪的打击模式。严厉打击严重刑事犯罪作为一项具体的刑事政策具有极大的合理性,是毋庸置疑的一项政策选择。     

(Non‐)Enforcement of Directors’ Duties in Corporate Groups: Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd

Corporate groups, a ubiquitous feature of modern business, pose formidable challenges for common law courts relying on traditional corporate law doctrine. Arising out of a corporate group's recent bid to recover millions of dollars in lost profits from a former director and CEO who had diverted a core business, Goh Chan Peng v Beyonics Technology Ltd raised thorny issues of separate legal entity doctrine, single economic unit theory, and reflective loss shared by common law legal systems. Despite finding that the defendant had breached his duties to the ultimate holding company, the Singapore Court of Appeal absolved the faithless director from most of his liabilities, relying on limited domestic precedent to the exclusion of a rich body of Commonwealth jurisprudence – including the House of Lords’ landmark Johnson v Gore Wood decision. This note explores the paths not taken by the court, and highlights the pitfalls of a narrow, autochthonous approach to problems of common law doctrine.     

论以民法补充海商法的单位

一直以来,“以民法补充海商法”的原则成为国内学者和实务界解决海商法与民法之间的法律冲突、补充《中华人民共和国海商法》立法漏洞的惯用思维;然而,这一原则的模糊性导致对以民法补充海商法的单位是事项还是要素产生争议。从《中华人民共和国立法法》与《中华人民共和国海商法》具体条文出发,通过法律解释得出民法补充海商法的单位是事项而非要素的初步结论;进而结合海商法的外来性和海上责任的独立性进行理论分析,对以上初步结论进行进一步印证;在此基础上提出对海商法研究与《中华人民共和国海商法》修改的建议。     

我国刑法中牵连关系的形态及其实质分析

牵连犯作为一种罪数形态,在刑法理论中具有重要地位。刑法理论中对牵连犯的判断是以牵连关系为标准,牵连关系在理论上不仅存在两种基本形式,而且也存在多种观点分歧。事实上,牵连关系与犯罪构成要件之间联系密切。当数行为之间的牵连关系属于同一犯罪构成要件之间的牵连时,应认定为一罪,应按从一从重的处断原则处罚;反之,如果数行为属于数个不同犯罪构成要件之间的牵连,则构成数罪,应实行并罚。     

Privacy by design and anonymisation techniques in action: Case study of Match technology

Privacy by Design is now enjoying widespread acceptance. The EU has recently expressly included it as one of the key principles in the revised data protection legal framework. But how does Privacy by design and data anonymisation work in practise? In this article the authors address this question from a practical point of view by analysing a case study on EU Financial Intelligence Units (“FIUs”) using the Ma³tch technology as additional feature to the existing exchange of information via FIU.NET decentralised computer network. They present, analyse, and evaluate Ma³tch technology from the perspective of personal data protection. The authors conclude that Ma³tch technology can be seen as a valuable example of Privacy by Design. It achieves data anonymisation and enhances data minimisation and data security, which are the fundamental elements of Privacy by Design. Therefore, it may not only improve the exchange of information among FIUs and allow for the data processing to be in line with applicable data protection requirements, but it may also substantially contribute to the protection of privacy of related data subjects. At the same time, the case study clearly shows that Privacy by Design needs to be supported and complemented by appropriate organisational and technical procedures to assure that the technology solutions devised to protect privacy would in fact do so.     

反思与探究:“孙大午案”的剖析及司法理念的重塑

"孙大午案"折射出司法者对非法吸收公众存款罪持宽泛理解的态度,通过本案可看出法体系整体性思考的重要性,以及前置法——刑法阶层性思维的必要性。非法吸收公众存款罪中的"存款"应仅限于"银行信用"范畴,通过引入"既存的实质性联系"标准对"不特定"的内涵进行限定,从而实现前置法与刑法之间的衔接。进一步,刑法具有二次性违法的特征,司法过程切忌价值先行。     

论国家机关、国有事业单位不能成立单位犯罪——以经济分析法学为视角

将国家机关、国有事业单位作为单位犯罪的主体会导致大大降低相关犯罪的刑罚成本,并不利于对此类犯罪的预防。根据以经济分析法学方法进行的分析,国家机关、国有事业单位均不宜成为单位犯罪的主体。     

论网络虚拟财产的“财产”属性——以刑法规范为视角

随着信息技术的不断发展,“网络虚拟财产”已与现实的生活建立起越来越紧密的联系。如何保护网络虚拟财产在刑法上还是一个盲点。由此导致的社会问题也随之而来。网络虚拟财产具有财产属性和法律意义上的财产权性质,应当包括在刑法保护对象内。我国刑法应严格区分“财物罪”与“利益罪”。