摘要
企业合规浪潮已经席卷全球,如何设定制度边界关乎制度正当性,具有重要意义。从预防性措施的角度讲,合规标准化的尝试可能侵害企业经营自由,并不可取;内部控制措施应符合比例原则,以可能、必要、可期待为准则;技术监控应保持在人身权边界之内。从外部激励措施的角度讲,不合规不能成为反向激励的事由;保证人义务不能被无限扩展;由实害犯到抽象危险犯的转化不应被无限扩展。从内部调查措施的角度讲,内部调查应当遵守以不得自证其罪原则为代表的刑事诉讼法的基本原则;内部调查形成的证据不能直接成为法庭证据,外部第三人对其使用更应受限。
corporate compliance is now globalizing,therefor it is significant to set the legal system boundary of criminal compliance.From the perspective of preventive measures,standardization of corporate compliance may infringe the corporate operation freedom and therefor it is not desirable.Meanwhile,internal control measures should conform to the principle of proportionality and be designed based on the rule of possibility,necessity and exportability.Technological monitoring should also be controlled within the personal rights.From the perspective of external incentive measures,non-compliance should not be a reason to punish corporations.At the same time,the obligation of the leaders or Compliance Officers to prevent work-related crimes of the employees as well as the transformation from actual damage offenses to offenses of abstract risk should not be extend arbitrarily.From the perspective of internal investigations,the internal investigation should obey the basic rules of criminal procedure law,especially the rule of no self-incriminating.The evidence from the internal investigation should not be used directly in the court or by the third party to sue the corporate.
作者
李本灿
LI Bencan(School of law,Shandong University,Qingdao Shandong 266237,China)
出处
《法学论坛》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第4期138-148,共11页
Legal Forum
基金
作者主持的国家社科基金青年项目《全球性合规风险背景下刑事合规制度建构的方法及其边界研究》(19CFX039)的阶段成果。
关键词
刑事合规
制度边界
内部调查
证据使用限度
criminal compliance
institutional boundary
internal investigation
use limit of the evidence
作者简介
李本灿(1987-).男,河南新乡人,法学博士,山东大学法学院副教授,博士后流动站研究人员,刑事合规研究中心执行主任,主要研究方向:刑事合规,比较刑法。
