企业合规刑事程序立法质疑
Questioning Criminal Procedural Legislation Related to Corporate Compliance
刘计划 1王汀2
作者信息
- 1. 中国人民大学法学院;中国人民大学刑事法律科学研究中心
- 2. 中国人民大学法学院
- 折叠
摘要
企业刑事合规的正当性基础并不充分,推进企业合规的刑事程序立法应当审慎.尚无可靠的证据表明企业合规能够预防犯罪以及起诉会给企业带来何种后果,功利主义的利益衡量不能有力论证企业刑事合规实践的正当性,也难以回答道义论的质疑.企业刑事合规与我国刑事程序法的基本理念和基本逻辑相冲突,仓促推进程序立法可能导致刑事程序法与刑事实体法、涉及公司治理的其他法规范之间的不协调.即便立法,也应严格限制"企业合规不起诉"的适用范围,设定严格的审查批准程序.尽管我国刑事诉讼法没有规定针对企业的缓起诉制度,但从保障企业权益、服务经济发展的角度来说,当务之急不是另起炉灶,而是要明确行政监管在预防企业违法犯罪中的基础性地位,充分发挥现有制度工具的作用.
Abstract
There is no solid legitimate basis for criminal compliance,and criminal procedural legis-lation in this regard should be reconsidered.There is no sufficient study on the actual deterrent effect of criminal compliance and to the actual effect on companies after prosecution.The pragmatic logic can neither justify the practice of criminal compliance in China nor answer the questions about moral principles.The legislation about criminal compliance conflicts with the legal system,infringes the basic doctrines of our criminal procedure system,and could lead to the contradiction between Criminal Procedure Law and other laws that regulate corporate governance.Moreover,the operation of procuratorial power during criminal compliance have serious deficiencies,and to confirm it legally is against the direction of the rule of law.Despite the lack of tools such as deferred-prosecution agreements,prosecutors in China could protect companies'lawful interests and make a difference for economic development through existing instruments.
关键词
企业治理/企业合规/刑事诉讼法修改/企业缓起诉Key words
Corporate governance/Corporate Compliance/Criminal procedural legislation/Def-erred-prosecution agreements引用本文复制引用
出版年
2024
NETL
NSTL
万方数据