本文選題：法人犯罪 + 審前轉(zhuǎn)處協(xié)議　； 參考：《中國(guó)刑事法雜志》2014年03期

【摘要】：審前轉(zhuǎn)處協(xié)議,肇端于少年微罪案件的處理。20世紀(jì)90年代初,聯(lián)邦檢察官將其擴(kuò)張適用于法人犯罪案件。"后安然"時(shí)代,審前轉(zhuǎn)處協(xié)議成為處理上市公司、跨國(guó)公司犯罪案件的常規(guī)模式。這種模式最大的特征是:在未經(jīng)法院定罪和量刑的前提下,仍可以要求涉罪法人履行繳納罰金、支付損害賠償金、聘任獨(dú)立監(jiān)事、撤換公司高管等法律義務(wù),因而是一種無需定罪的懲罰。這一制度勃興的邏輯基礎(chǔ)是要避免刑罰的水波效應(yīng)—起訴和定罪法人對(duì)與法人犯罪行為無關(guān)的投資者、雇員、養(yǎng)老金領(lǐng)取者、客戶等無辜的第三人利益的嚴(yán)重侵害。在法人審前轉(zhuǎn)處協(xié)議的簽訂和履行過程中,檢察官擁有一邊倒的、幾乎不受任何制約的裁量權(quán),從而埋下權(quán)力濫用的空間。為此,美國(guó)司法部頒布了一系列有關(guān)起訴法人的訴訟指南,予以相應(yīng)的內(nèi)部規(guī)范。然而,內(nèi)部制約機(jī)制總有其局限性,因而有必要引入外部制約機(jī)制,由法官對(duì)審前轉(zhuǎn)處協(xié)議的內(nèi)容及其履行進(jìn)行相應(yīng)的司法監(jiān)督。
[Abstract]:The pretrial transfer agreement, which began in the handling of juvenile microcrime cases, was extended by federal prosecutors in the early 1990s to cases of corporate crime. " In the post-Enron era, the pre-trial transfer agreement has become the normal mode of dealing with the crime cases of listed companies and transnational corporations. The biggest characteristic of this model is that without the conviction and sentencing of the court, legal persons involved can still be required to fulfill their legal obligations, such as paying fines, paying damages, hiring independent supervisors, removing company executives, and so on. It is therefore a punishment without conviction. The logical basis of this system is to avoid the water wave effect of penalty-the prosecution and conviction of legal persons against the interests of innocent third parties, such as investors, employees, pensioners, clients and other innocent third parties that have nothing to do with the criminal acts of legal persons. In the process of signing and carrying out the agreement of legal person's pretrial transfer, the prosecutor has one-sided discretion, which is almost free from any restriction, thus burying the space for abuse of power. To this end, the U. S. Department of Justice issued a series of litigation guidelines for legal persons, to give corresponding internal norms. However, the internal restriction mechanism always has its limitation, so it is necessary to introduce the external restriction mechanism, and the judge should carry on the corresponding judicial supervision to the content and the fulfillment of the pretrial transfer agreement.
【作者單位】： 浙江大學(xué)光華法學(xué)院;
【基金】：光華教育基金會(huì)和浙江大學(xué)光華法學(xué)院兩岸法治交流項(xiàng)目資助
【分類號(hào)】：D971.2
，

本文編號(hào)：1897282