О введении в России института уголовной ответственности юридических лиц

The article substantiates the existence of criminal liability and other types of liability in the criminal legislation. The authors give a classification of types of criminal liability depending on the legal fact entailing responsibility and specific measures that make up the content of a particular type. It is proposed to distinguish two main types-primary and secondary responsibility, each of which is divided into separate varieties. They argue for the need to include in the criminal code of the Russian Federation rules on the responsibility of minors who are not subject to criminal liability; make predictions about the possibility of new measures of responsibility in criminal law. In view of the different types of liability, the question of liability of legal persons under criminal law could be considered differently.

This article analyzes the main arguments of the opponents of introducing criminal liability for legal entities. The paper discusses its social causation and international obligations of Russia in this area. The author dwells on historical reasons of introducing criminal liability for legal entities in our country. The paper examines conceptual possibilities for establishing criminal liability of legal entities, its conformity with the principles of criminal law of Russia, the balance between criminal and administrative liability. The paper analyzes the possibility for a legal entity to commit a crime, the balance between criminal liability of a legal entity and a person, problems associated with the system of penalties for legal persons, a possibility of using foreign experience in this area. Also, it examines the possibility of integrating legal entities criminal liability rules into the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author draws a conclusion concerning essential refutability of arguments of opponents of criminal liability of legal entities. The author argues for its introduction and justifies the objective necessity of its implementation into Russian criminal law for a variety of factors. The author specifies what should be borne in mind to implement it. It is noted that positive effects of its implementation can overcome all potential problems.

歸責概念源自啟蒙時期，並且承認集合體作為歸責主體。本文解釋了「道德性的人格」(persona moralis composita)此一必要概念，同時展示了其各種應用，特別是法人的可罰性。The concept of imputation, as emerged in the Enlightenment, also recognises collectives as subjects of imputation. The article explains the necessary concept of persona moralis composita and shows various applications. In particular, the criminal liability of legal persons can be justified in this way.

The article analyzes the types of legal liability for violation of anti-corruption legislation in foreign countries. In particular, the article reveales the peculiarities of bringing to civil, administrative and criminal liability. The consolidation of different types of responsibility in the regulations of foreign countries is studied with its common and distinctive features. It is also established that as a type of legal liability, civil liability is not integrated into civil law, unlike administrative and criminal law. Most often, civil law mechanisms are not provided in civil, but in anti-corruption legislation and other legislations. In foreign countries much more widely is applied administrative liability for the corruption actions against both individuals and legal entities, the rules of which can also be found in anti-corruption legislation, laws on interest conflicts, codes of administrative violations. As for criminal liability for violating the corruption legislation, it exists in all countries, where the list of prohibited acts of corruption is periodically updated depending on the emergence of new corruption threats and risks. The emphasis is placed on the fact that foreign countries use various mechanisms to bring legal entities to justice, but most often such rules are contained in criminal codes. Another mechanism for introducing the institution of criminal liability of legal entities is the adoption of special laws on criminal liability for legal entities, the common features of which are: the definition of the main features of criminal liability of legal entities; transfer of body of crime for which legal entities are responsible; references to criminal, criminal-procedural and criminal-executive legislation, according to which the investigation and consideration of criminal cases on crimes committed by legal entities, as well as the execution of sentences are carried out in the general order. The article analyses the sanctions that can be applied in committing a corruption crime. Particular attention is paid to the liability of legal entities for violations of legislation in the field of prevention of corruption and sanctions applied to legal entities. Key words: corruption, anti-corruption legislation, legal liability, criminal liability, administrative liability, civil liability, sanctions, legal entities.

Corporations as legal entities or subjects can give a major contribution in increasing economic growth and national development, but there are times when corporations commit various criminal acts (corporate crime) that have a detrimental impact on the state and society. In reality, corporations can be a place to hide assets resulting from criminal acts that are not touched by the legal process in criminal liability. The problem of corporate responsibility as a perpetrator of a crime is not a simple matter, considering that a corporation is a legal entity, not a person who can be subject to imprisonment. In addition, the problem also stems from the principle of no crime without error (geen straf zonder schold). Mistakes are known as mens rea or bad intentions that naturally only exist in natural people.
 
 Mens rea is an element that is difficult to prove from a corporation that is considered to have committed a crime, considering that corporations can only take action through the organ of board of directors. Corporations can be considered to have committed a crime based on the actions of the person who supervises the management of the corporation. On December 21, 2016, the Supreme Court stipulates Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016 concerning Procedures for Handling Criminal Cases by Corporations (Perma No. 13 of 2016). The existence of Perma Number 13 of 2016 has become the basis for law enforcement to be more confident in taking action against corporations that commit criminal acts. This study aims to find out how criminal responsibility can be charged to PT Nindya Karya (Persero) as a perpetrator of corruption and how to apply Perma Number 13 of 2016 in handling corruption cases committed by PT Nindya Karya (Persero).
 
 The method used is normative research. The criminal liability that can be imposed on PT Nindya Karya (Persero) is the principal crime in the form of a fine with a maximum provision plus 1/3 (one third). The determination of PT Nindya Karya (Persero) as a suspect in a criminal act of corruption is a concrete step in law enforcement in Indonesia in ensnaring corporations as perpetrators of criminal acts. This determination is a breakthrough in law enforcement, especially for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) after the issuance of Perma No. 13/2016 which can be used as a guide in the implementation of handling corporate crimes.

The article is devoted to the research of the legal nature of academic responsibility. The issue was raised as to whether this responsibility is an independent type of legal liability or whether it is an interdisciplinary legal institution. It is concluded that the actual ground of academic responsibility is an academic offense: guilty, illegal act or inactivity that has harmful consequences; committed by a natural or legal person; which encroaches on the training process, teaching and conducting educational, scientific (creative) activities by non-compliance with the normatively defined procedure for training, writing, defense, publication, verification and evaluation of academic texts and other objects of intellectual property rights. It is not enough the legislative definition of types of academic offenses to implement the academic responsibility. The analysis of the factual ground of an academic offense has showed that such legal construction as the composition of the offense does not allow to cover the existing branch tools of protection and defense of academic texts and other objects of intellectual property rights. For academic offenses it is advisable to use different types of legal liability – civil, disciplinary, administrative, criminal, and therefore, it should be considered as: a form of legal coercion; obligation; negative consequences; legal relations; interdisciplinary legal institute. The academic responsibility by its legal nature is an interdisciplinary legal institution, so it needs further research to determine the features of civil, disciplinary, administrative and criminal liability for academic offenses. The refusal of the interdisciplinary approach to academic responsibility will significantly affect its legal opportunities, which unreasonably narrows the legal means (tools) that can be used in the process of its implementation.

The article is devoted to the issues of criminal liability of legal entities in the Republic of Latvia, established in 2005 by amending the Criminal Law of the Republic of Latvia. Attention is drawn to the fact that in the Latvian legislation a model of criminal liability is implemented, in which a legal entity is recognized not as a subject of a crime, but as a subject of criminal liability, to which measures of a coercive nature provided for by the Criminal Law are applied. At the same time, only legal entities of private law are subject to criminal liability, while the law does not provide for bringing public legal entities to criminal liability. The reasons for the application of enforcement measures to legal entities and the types of such measures are considered. It is indicated that compulsory measures against a legal entity can be applied for a criminal act if it was committed in the interests of the relevant legal entity, in its favor or as a result of improper supervision on its part by a responsible individual who acted individually or as part of a collegial body of a legal entity. In this case, a specially authorized person means a person who acted: on the basis of the right to represent a legal entity or act on its behalf; on the basis of the right to make decisions on behalf of a legal entity; or on the basis of the right to exercise control within a legal entity. The author considers the enforcement measures applied to legal entities (liquidation; restriction of rights; confiscation of property; monetary recovery), as well as criminal procedural issues of the application of compulsory measures to legal entities.

The current state of legal doctrine and court practice on the issues of authority abuse as a ground for liability of bodies and persons performing the functions of business entities has been analysed. Since a business entity forms its own will and implements it through its bodies and persons performing the functions of its agencies, the relevant persons must adhere to the powers defined by law and the charter. If they act beyond their own powers, the will of such a legal entity is distorted and their own will, the will of individuals, takes place. The practice of bringing to justice members of bodies and persons performing the functions of business entities has now been established where such a legal entity is held administratively liable for an administrative offence committed by its authorised person. An example of this is cases involving liability for violations of the requirements of the legislation on the provision and disclosure of information in financial services markets. In general, it should be taken into account that the performance of a specific individual on behalf of a business entity in civil turnover does not change the independent nature of the will, behaviour and responsibility of such a legal entity for its actions in civil relations. It has been argued that, based on the general tenets of civil law, abuse of authority as a ground for liability of bodies and persons performing the functions of business entities has its own specifics of application. This is due not only to the actions (inaction) of such persons, but also to the counterparty’s (third party’s) awareness of the fact that the representatives of such a company act within the scope of their powers. It has been proved that the fact that a body and/or a person performing the functions of a business entity’s body committed unlawful, unfair actions or abused its authority is not the only and sufficient ground for invalidating transactions (agreements) concluded by this body on behalf of a legal entity with third parties. There is a need to prove that the counterparty knew (should have known) that the authority to represent the rights and interests of the business entity was limited by its body or a person performing the functions of such a body.

The history of tortious acts had known individuals as the only entities who, through their specific actions, performed the different types of legal dishonesty. There could be punished the person who, by taking an action or by its omission, produced a prohibited consequence. However, the development of industrialization and the expansion of economic activity have led to the establishment of legal or business entities. They marched in different types of legal relationships being based on the desire for profit. In this context, there appeared the first forms of illegal activities performed by legal entities in the financial sphere. The final consequence of illegal actions taken by legal entities was reflected in causing extremely large damage being beyond the one which could be made by people as subjects of tort liability. Regarding the fact that law is a faithful companion of social events, it is natural that there were attempts of a legal regulation of the activities of legal entities as the answer to their illicit conduct. Hence, the tort liability of legal entities may be divided into: misdemeanor liability, economic leap responsibility and criminal liability. Last decade there was, for the first time, introduced criminal liability of legal entities in Serbia, by which our country was classified among legally regulated European countries. However, this does not exclude their liability for violations and economic crimes as special forms of tort liability. Starting from the previously mentioned facts, the author wishes to point out the basic elements of all three forms of tort liability of legal entities in our legal system. The order of the presentation will be aligned with the time of their introduction into our positive law. Therefore, first there will be said something about the misdemeanor, then about the economic leap and criminal liability of legal entities.

The article is dedicated to review of the laws of the Republic of Montenegro on the criminal liability of legal entities; the main acts are the Special Law on the Liability of Legal Entities for Criminal Offenses of 2006, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Montenegro and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Montenegro. The publication reviews statutory resolutions allowing consideration of a legal entity as a criminal liability subject; gives a scope of persons who can be brought to criminal liability; pays attention to the fact that legal entities in the Republic of Montenegro may be brought to criminal liability for any actions acknowledged as crimes by the national criminal laws with no exceptions; specifies articles of the General Part of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Montenegro, provisions of which are applied to bringing legal entities to criminal liability; reviews such criminal sanction types applicable to legal entities as a fi ne, liquidation of a legal entity, forfeiture and sentence publication; analyzes circumstances considered at punishment imposition and the conditions for release from punishment. The author notes criminal procedure peculiarities of bringing legal entities to liability including broad discretionary powers of a prosecutor in resolution of issues on bringing legal entities to criminal liability

The article examines issues related to the terminology of legal liability and criminal liability under the criminal legislation of Kyrgyzstan. The institution of criminal liability is considered in the system of legal liability. The most common and isolated features of criminal liability are summarized. As a result of the study, the most characteristic features of criminal liability and its place in the system of legal liability were outlined.

The article analyzes the theory and practice of exemption from criminal liability in the conditions of the legal regime of martial law in Ukraine. It has been proven that the relevant institution in the system of the field of criminal law is extremely important and encompasses a number of important elements in the context of the mechanism of protection and protection of human and citizen rights and freedoms. It has been established that the content and essence of exemption from criminal responsibility as an institution of criminal law, which is actively applied in the conditions of implementation of the principles and norms of restorative justice into national legislation, consists in such an order of its functioning, when a person does not experience significant (temporary) restrictions on his own rights and freedoms under certain conditions and circumstances, which allows the state not to spend administrative and coercive resources on the application of restrictions and punishment of a person who has committed a criminal offense, if such a person does not pose a significant public danger. It has been proven that in the conditions of classification of criminal offenses into misdemeanors and crimes, the relevant institution enables the proportionality of the application of criminal coercion in relation to persons who are exempted from criminal responsibility under certain circumstances and allows the appropriate management resources to be diverted to the application of such coercion in relation to the circle of persons with culpability and high public danger has been proven. The author draws attention to the specifics of the functioning of the institution of exemption from criminal responsibility under the conditions of the legal regime of martial law in Ukraine, the peculiarities of its use, especially in relation to persons who make up the exchange fund (prisoners of war), which requires further elaboration in research.

The subjects of the economic activity, whether they are natural persons or legal entities, are obliged to exercise their activity in good faith, according to honest usages, respecting the interests of consumers and the requirements of fair competition. Based on the principles of freedom of trade and freedom of competition, any merchant has the right to attract the clientele of his competitors. Thus, the act of competition, even if it causes damage to some economic agents, is not illegal by itself, but only if the means, acts or facts used to attract customers are unfair. A basic principle/inherent condition of the market economy is the competition between the companies carrying out economic activity on the respective market, of course when this competition is by the customs and provisions governing the rivalry of competitors. The present study is intended to analyze the phenomenon of competition through the legislation of the Republic of Moldova that regulates competitive relations, including, addressing issues related to the identification and responsibility of the actors/ subjects of competitive relations, the types of legal liability, and the impact of unfair competition on the competitive environment in general and, on the rights and interests of natural and legal persons, but also of the society in particular. The authors analyzed the provisions of competition legislation to identify the regulatory framework's quality and its deficiencies. For this purpose, the authors analyzed the provisions of the competition law no. 183/2012 and the Republic of Moldova's administrative, contraventional, and criminal Code. The conclusions reached by the authors revealed a series of legislative loopholes, but also new research directions that would constitute the basis for certain recommendations and proposals for improving the analyzed normative framework.

The article is dedicated to the issues of introduction of criminal liability of legal entities in Hungary. Attention is paid to the fact that the establishment of criminal liability of legal entities in this country has been largely caused by the need for bringing its national laws in compliance with the provisions of a number of acts of the European Union (EU) and its membership in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Hungarian legal acts on criminal liability of legal entities are reviewed; the main of them are the special omnibus law On Measures Applicable to Legal Entities within the Framework of Criminal Law 2001 which came into effect on May 1, 2004, and contains provisions of criminal and criminal procedure law as well as the Hungarian Criminal Code 2012 which came into effect on July 1, 2013. It is indicated that under the Hungarian laws, a legal entity is a criminal liability subject criminal law measures are applicable to. At the same time, it is highlighted that not all legal entities can be held criminally liable. It is noted that criminal liability of legal entities is possible in case of any willful violation of the Hungarian Criminal Code by an individual acting in the interests of a legal entity in case of the presence of conditions stipulated by the law. Criminal law measures applicable to legal entities are named: liquidation, fine, restriction of activity. A conclusion is made that in Hungary, criminal liability of a legal entity is understood as application of criminal law measures to a legal entity by court in the course of a criminal procedure in the event of a willful crime (criminally punishable act) committed by an individual acting in the interests of the corresponding legal entity upon the presence of conditions stipulated by the law On Measures Applicable to Legal Entities within the Framework of Criminal Law 2001.

The article is devoted to Swedish legislation on criminal liability of legal entities. It is substantiated that the criminal liability of legal entities in Sweden is the application of sanctions to a legal entity in cases provided for by criminal law. The sanctions provided for by Swedish legislation for legal entities for committing crimes (corporate fines and confiscation), the relationship between the crime of an individual and the prosecution of a legal entity are analyzed. It is noted that the basis for applying criminal sanctions to a legal entity is a crime committed by an individual while the legal entity is carrying out entrepreneurial (commercial) activities. The crimes for the commission of which a legal entity can be held liable are indicated. The procedural procedure for bringing a legal entity to criminal liability for committing a crime and the practice of applying sanctions to legal entities, as well as the prospects for the development of Swedish legislation on criminal liability of legal entities are considered.