單位固有刑事責任的提倡及其教義學形塑

出於刑事政策的需要引入刑事合規理念，並不必然導致單位犯罪歸責模式的轉變。放棄以自然人為仲介的單位代位元責任，必須先放棄存在意義的犯罪主體論。犯罪主體論導致我國單位犯罪制度的實然效能明顯低於應然效能，而在有限的實然效能之內，又可能因個人犯罪株連無辜單位，因單位犯罪株連無辜個人。犯罪只能由自然人實施，單位固有責任屬於組織責任，其教義學構建自始便區別於自然人犯罪的行為責任、道義責任。應當部分放棄存在意義的罪責觀念，將單位刑事歸責的核心錨定在客觀，主觀歸責僅具有消極意義。對於犯罪的發生，若單位自身存在以不容許的管理缺陷為根據的組織過失，單位應受歸責，除非其無法預見單位成員會惡意規避本單位體制進行犯罪；若單位業已制定並落實了適當的合規計畫，單位無論如何都不受歸責。

The introduction of criminal compliance for the needs of criminal policy does not necessarily lead to a shift in the imputation model of corporate liability. To abandon the vicarious liability with natural persons as intermediaries, we must first remove the attention on the question ''who is the subject of crime''. This approach makes the judicial effectiveness of corporate crime system in China lower than the effectiveness that the law should have had. And within the limited judicial effectiveness, it may lead to the corporate and the individual being found guilty together. In fact, it is no longer necessary to prove that the corporate was ontologically considered as subject of crime if corporate liability is to be established. The corporate can be objectively ascribed for its negligence in organization. However, the criminal liability will be excluded when the corporate could not predict the crimes committed by its members in violation of the organizational management system. If the corporate has formulated and implemented an appropriate compliance program, it shall not be found guilty.