我國訂立法人刑事專法（專章）可行性之評估──以外國法制深度研究為核心

Evaluation of the Feasibility of Enacting a Special Law (Chapter) on Corporate Criminal Law−Using Indepth Study on Foreign Legal Systems as Core

在傳統刑法理論中，法人固然不具有刑事責任能力，但在日益複雜的商業模式與全球化快速金流所衍生的金融犯罪範疇中，是否仍應堅持傳統刑法理論，而否認法人的刑事責任能力，從防堵犯罪實效性的角度觀之，實有重新加以檢視的必要。
在比較法上，本研究團隊針對了美國、日本、奧地利以及德國相關立法的討論。美國對法人犯罪之刑事責任之建構，直接從預防法人犯罪（兼預防內部人犯罪）實踐刑罰之特別預防目的。當法人受僱人或代理人，於職權行使範圍內所為不法行為，基於公共政策利益及法人從該商業活動獲利之理由，依據侵權行為法之代位責任原則，得將該行為轉嫁歸責法人，而對該法人課以刑責，此即法人代位責任原則。因此，法人刑事責任之歸責，應具備下列三項客觀不法構成要件，法人之受僱人或代理人之行為方得以歸責於本人：第一、受僱人或代理人代表公司實施犯罪行為；第二、實施之不法行為係在渠等權限範圍內所為，此等代理行為可包括真正代理及表見代理；第三、該行為係為促進公司法人之利益。
德國法上，學說通說均認法人無犯罪能力，針對法人處罰的規定，目前德國將之規定於「違反秩序罰法」第30條針對法人及人合組織體的違法事項處以罰緩。至於法人立法的討論，經過2013年至2020年一連串的立法工作至今，仍停留在草案的階段。
奧地利國會於2005年9月28日審議通過「刑事犯罪團體責任法」，簡稱「團體責任法」，並於2006年1月1日正式生效，成為奧地利法人刑法之實定法依據。是一部兼具實體與程序的法規。犯罪行為係為團體之利益所違犯者，不必再審查是否違反團體所負之義務，而犯罪行為係違反團體所負之義務者，則不必考量其是否為了團體之利益所違犯。團體責任法之團體罰鍰裁量模式，係比照奧地利自然人刑法之罰金刑量刑體系，採取日額罰金制。
日本刑法在傳統上，並未在刑法典中設置關於法人處罰的明文規定，但是在歷史上，對於法人的處罰，則在日本的特別刑法領域有超過百年非常悠久的傳統，這是眾所周知的事實。在日本刑事法學界，對於法人的處罰的理論性探討，也是以法人處罰規定為前提，早期曾相當深入地觸及法人有無犯罪能力等基本問題，至大約1990年代以後，則開始討論對於法人的刑事責任歸責模式。日本學說對於法人的刑事責任歸責，大致可分為占有通說地位的視同模式，以及最近的組織體模式。
綜整焦點座及文獻分析的結果：絕大多數的受認者肯認法人之犯罪能力，主要執行現狀與困難有三，「歸責基礎不明」與「欠缺法人罰金刑裁量標準」，所導致適用上之困難，以及「罰金刑與沒收難以執行」。至於是否要訂定免責條款，實務界與學者間則產生了很大的分岐。至於我國法人刑事專法或專章之可行性，多位受訪者基於國內立法耗時繁瑣，且法人犯罪類型多元，難以囊括所有型態之犯罪，有掛一漏萬之危險，而「排斥」專法或專章之訂立。
本研究建議，一方面參酌美國法的立法政策，採事先的預防政策，以法人設有內部控制機制可減輕刑責的誘因，加諸法人應盡其本身的監督、注意，事前防止犯罪行為的發生，對於高額的罰金刑僅犯罪後轉嫁於各組成之自然人負擔，更收成效。

In traditional criminal law theory, legal person certainly do not have the capacity for criminal liability, but in the field of financial crimes derived from the increasingly complex business model and globalized rapid financial flows, whether we should still adhere to traditional criminal law theory and deny the capacity for criminal liability of legal persons is indeed necessary to be re-examined from the perspective of the effectiveness of crime prevention.
In terms of comparative methodology, the research team focuses on the discussion of relevant legislation in the United States, Japan, Austria and Germany. In the United States, criminal liability for crimes committed by legal person is constructed in such a way as to fulfill the special preventive purpose of penalties directly from the prevention of crimes committed by legal person (as well as the prevention of crimes committed by insiders). When an employee or agent of a legal person commits a wrongful act within the scope of the exercise of his or her authority, the legal person may be held criminally liable for the act by transferring the act to the legal person in accordance with the principle of subrogation under the tort law based on the interests of public policy and the legal person's interest in profiting from the business activity, i.e., the principle of subrogation of the legal person. Therefore, the attribution of criminal liability of a legal person should have the following three objective wrongful elements in order for the acts of a servant or agent of a legal person to be attributed to him or her: first, the servant or agent commits a criminal act on behalf of the company; second, the wrongful act is committed within the scope of authority, which may include true agency and apparent agency; and third, the act is committed for the purpose of furthering the interests of the company or legal person.
Under German law, it is generally recognized that legal person are incapable of committing crimes, and the provisions on penalties for legal person are currently stipulated in Article 30 of the Law on Penalties for Breaches of Order, which imposes penalties on legal persons and organizations for breaches of the law. As for the discussion of legislation on legal person, after a series of legislative work from 2013 to 2020, it is still at the stage of draft.
On September 28, 2005, the Austrian Parliament passed the Law on Corporate Liability for Criminal Offenses, or the“Corporate Liability Law”for short, which came into effect on January 1, 2006, and has become the basis of the Austrian criminal law for legal person. It is a law that combines both substantive and procedural aspects. If a crime is committed in the interest of a group, it is not necessary to examine whether it is a violation of the obligations of the group. The group liability law of corporate fines is modeled on the Austrian natural person criminal law system of fines and adopts the daily fine system.
Traditionally, Japanese criminal law does not provide for the punishment of legal person in the criminal code, but historically, there is a long tradition of punishment of legal persons in Japanese special criminal law for more than 100 years, and this is a well known fact. In the field of Japanese criminal law, the theoretical discussion on the punishment of legal persons is also based on the premise of the provisions on the punishment of legal persons, and in the early stage, it has touched upon the basic issues such as whether a legal person has the capacity to commit crimes in a fairly in-depth manner, and then after the 1990s, it has begun to discuss the mode of attribution of criminal liability to a legal person. Japanese literature on the attribution of criminal liability to legal persons can be broadly categorized into the deeming model, which is the prevailing view, and the more recent organization model.
The results of the focus group and literature analysis show that the majority of the respondents recognize the criminal capacity of legal persons, and that there are three main difficulties in implementation:“unclear basis for attribution”and“lack of criteria for determining the fine penalty for legal persons”, which lead to difficulties in application, and“difficulty in enforcing the fine penalty and confiscation”. As to whether or not to establish exemption clauses, there is a great divergence of opinion between the practical world and scholars. As for the feasibility of enacting a special law or chapter on criminalization of legal persons in Taiwan, many respondents“rejected”the establishment of a special law or chapter because of the time-consuming and cumbersome nature of domestic legislation and the diversity of crimes committed by legal persons, which makes it difficult to cover all types of crimes and poses the risk of omission.
This paper suggests, on the one hand, that the legislative policy of the U.S. law be taken into consideration and that an ex ante preventive policy be adopted, with the incentive that legal persons have internal control mechanisms that can reduce criminal liability, and with the addition that the legal persons should do their part to minimize criminal liability.