Уголовная ответственность юридических лиц в Социалистической Республике Вьетнам

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Статья посвящена законодательству Швеции об уголовной ответственности юридических лиц. Рассматриваются вопросы формирования и развития шведского уголовного законодательства, международно-правовой и экономической обусловленности включения в уголовное законодательство Швеции норм об уголовной ответственности юридических лиц. Уголовное законодательство Швеции не полностью кодифицировано, наряду с уголовным кодексом имеются и другие законы, содержащие уголовно-правовые нормы, относящиеся к уголовной ответственности юридических лиц. Отмечается, что уголовная ответственность юридических лиц рассматривается в Швеции как применение к ним предусмотренных уголовным законом санкций – мер правового воздействия (корпоративных штрафов и конфискации). Приводятся и анализируются общие условия применения к юридическим лицам мер правового воздействия за совершение преступлений. The article is devoted to Swedish legislation on criminal liability of legal entities. The issues of the formation and development of Swedish criminal legislation, international legal and economic conditions for the inclusion of norms on criminal liability of legal entities in Swedish criminal legislation are considered. Swedish criminal legislation is not fully codified; in addition to the criminal code, there are other laws containing criminal law provisions relating to the criminal liability of legal entities. It is noted that the criminal liability of legal entities is considered in Sweden as the application to them of sanctions provided for by criminal law - legal measures (corporate fines and confiscation). The general conditions for applying legal measures to legal entities for committing crimes are presented and analyzed.

The article is devoted to the Finnish legislation on criminal liability of legal entities. The following are considered: the concept, grounds and conditions of criminal liability of legal entities; the relationship between a criminal act committed by an individual and the criminal liability of a legal entity; corporate fine as a punishment for legal entities and grounds for refusing to apply a corporate fine to a legal entity; crimes for which a legal entity may be held criminally liable.

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 draws attention to the increased relevance of the study of the issues of criminal liability of legal entities, which has become a novelty of the Armenian criminal and criminal procedure legislation. The relevance of the topic of this article is due to the fact that with the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, adopted by the National Assembly on June 30, 2021, and entered into legal force on July 1, 2022, a legal entity is considered as a full-fledged subject of criminal procedure relations by the defense. Present article contains a theoretical analysis of some issues related to the criminal procedural status of a legal entity. The article discusses the place of a legal entity in criminal procedural legal relations, its criminal procedural status, procedural responsibility. Such a category as the procedural legal personality of a legal entity as a participant in criminal proceedings is analyzed, their possible significance for the implementation of the procedural status is explored.

This article presents a new research on a number of issues concerning corporate criminal liability from comparative law perspective in the criminal law of Algeria, Morocco and Vietnam, such as: History; legal persons are the subject of offences and the subject of criminal liability; scope of corporate criminal offences; elements of corporate criminal law; principles of attributing criminal liability to juridical persons, types of penalties and judicial/security measures applied to juridical persons committing crimes. On the premise of comparative law research, the article draws some conclusions and proposes recommendations to improve the provisions on corporate criminal liabililty in the current Penal Code of Vietnam.
 Keywords: Criminal liability of legal entities, comparison of Criminal Laws of Algeria, Morocco, Vietnam, penalties for legal entities committing crimes.
 
 

The article examines the legal nature of criminal responsibility of legal entities in the social sphere and the Spanish models for the prosecution of legal entities for systematization. It also summarizes the positions of Spanish state authorities and lawyers on this issue and analyzes their proposed interpretation of the provisions on the criminal liability of legal entities. It is considered that the criminal liability of individuals should not exclude the criminal liability of legal entities and vice versa, it is not necessary to establish the interdependence and interrelatedness of these types of criminal liability in the social sphere. The article proves the theoretical and practical uncertainty of the procedure for the prosecution of legal entities in the social sphere and the lack of a unified position as to which criminal liability of legal entities is currently applied in Spain.

Criminal liability of legal entities has gained an inalienable place in the system of legal liability in most European jurisdictions, including the Czech Republic. Departing from the premise that it is a suitable supplement to the liability of a legal entity in the event of serious unlawful acts of natural persons from which the legal entity benefits, this article aims to characterize the position and role of this form of liability in the Czech legal system. Essentially, however, it seeks to determine under which circumstances it is possible for legal entities to be relieved of liability using an exculpatory clause. Based on a case study of the Czech Republic, it illustrates the added value of criminal compliance programs, which, if properly set up and implemented in practice and complemented by prevention, detection and response measures, play a decisive role in establishing such criminal exculpation. The article further finds that rules pertaining to ethical codes of conduct are in fact ‘elevated’ to the level of legal rules through compliance programs. Compliance, one of the components of Corporate Social Responsibility, thus becomes an expression of a legal obligation, i.e., the obligation to properly manage and control the corporation, which has important legal implications.

The act of corruption is a violation of every person’s life as stipulated in Article 28A of the 1945 Constitution. As a result of corruption that has been detrimental to the country’s finance or the country’s economy, it also impedes the growth and sustainability of demanding national development high efficiency. For this corruption case, a court for corruption case has been established. Meanwhile, Money Laundering as stipulated in Law No. 8 of 2010 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crimes, does not have a special court but is often put together with a court of corruption. A court of corruption is the only court that has the authority to examine, hear, and decide the cases of corruption and money laundering crimes whose original crime is a criminal act of corruption; and/or criminal acts which are explicitly stated in other laws as criminal acts of corruption. The problem is how the litigation of corruption and criminal acts of money laundering are incorporated in an indictment of corruption and money laundering.
 This study used the descriptive method with a normative juridical approach. Data collection was carried out through library studies by collecting data in the form of legal materials; primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The analysis technique of this study was descriptive analysis that analyze the process and institutions based on legislation.
 The results of this study showed that the Corruption Eradication Act regulates materially and formally, so there are exceptions to the principles that are generally regulated in the Criminal Code (KUHP), Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) (Lex Specialist Derogate lex Generalis). The modes of money laundering are carried out in various ways. Judging from TPPU modes, it seemed true that TPPU is a stand-alone crime when using cumulative charges is more appropriate. The legal policy of the Corruption Crime Act and Money Laundering Lay (TPPU) related to the rule of law which is the basis of legality for Beneficial Ownership Criminal Liability (BO) as well as its position in Deelneming theory is a topic that must be formulated n the Action Bill Criminal Crime and Money Laundering Crime Bill (TPPU), whether effective evidence for Beneficial Owners (BO), doctrinal or the teaching snares. In the future politics of law enforcement in eradicating corruption and TPPU leads to Beneficial Ownerds (BO) is not enough as long as only the physical actors or stop at the actors revealed in the investigation. Besides the beneficial owner, it is also necessary to regulate criminal liability for legal entities that are used to save the proceeds of money laundering

The right against self-incrimination plays an essential role in the construction of an accusatorial criminal procedure system that legitimizes the jus puniendi. With the rise of models of criminal liability for legal entities in various jurisdictions, could this right be conferred upon them? What would be its scope in this perspective? This article, through bibliographic review and deductive theoretical method, first examines the extension of fundamental rights to legal entities. Subsequently, the focus turns specifically to the right against self-incrimination, investigating its foundations and nature. Based on this, the article examines relevant jurisprudence in the European Union regarding the right against self-incrimination, identifies key perspectives and divergences in its application to legal entities, ultimately providing considerations on the scope of this right in this context.