법인격부인제도와 단위범죄
Piercing the Corporation’s Veil and the Corporation Crime
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
From the point of legal impacts, there are three different opinions in academic circles on the nature of piercing the corporation’s veil. It is generally accepted that piercing the corporation’s veil is not to perish or negate the corporation’s personality completely and wholly, but to negate the shareholder’s limited liability on the precondition of the existence of corporation’s entity. Thus the shareholder should be responsible for the corporation’s indebts unlimitedly and jointly with the corporation. Although it is mainly a system in the civil domain, piercing the corporation’s veil can be applied in the criminal domain. Since in the circumstance of corporation crime it is abused by its shareholder, the corporation’s personality should be disregarded and the shareholder should be responsible for the criminal acts with the corporation. There exist two crimes: one is a substantial crime committed by the shareholder, the other a fictitious crime attributed to the corporation. The corporation and its shareholder are punished respectively for their own crime.
Abstract
From the point of legal impacts, there are three different opinions in academic circles on the nature of piercing the corporation’s veil. It is generally accepted that piercing the corporation’s veil is not to perish or negate the corporation’s personality completely and wholly, but to negate the shareholder’s limited liability on the precondition of the existence of corporation’s entity. Thus the shareholder should be responsible for the corporation’s indebts unlimitedly and jointly with the corporation. Although it is mainly a system in the civil domain, piercing the corporation’s veil can be applied in the criminal domain. Since in the circumstance of corporation crime it is abused by its shareholder, the corporation’s personality should be disregarded and the shareholder should be responsible for the criminal acts with the corporation. There exist two crimes: one is a substantial crime committed by the shareholder, the other a fictitious crime attributed to the corporation. The corporation and its shareholder are punished respectively for their own crime.
참고문헌 (22)
- 朱慈蕴, "公司法人格否认法理研究" (1998), 法律出版社
- 陈现杰, "公司人格否认法理述评", 外国法译评, (3), pp.82~ (1996)
- 蔡立东, "公司人格否认论, In 民商法论丛", pp.327~ (1994), 法律出版社
- 江平, "法人制度论" (1995), 中国政法大学出版社
- 郑永宽, "法人人格否定论", 现代法学, (3), pp.89~ (2005)
- W, "肯尼刑法原理, In 李启家等译" (1989), 华夏出版社
- Sanborn, J, "in United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co., 142F.2d247,255(C.C.E.D.Wis.1905)", ~ (1905)
- 大隅健一郎, "法人格否认的法理, In 会计法的诸问题", pp.1~2 (1958), 有信 堂
- 曲伶利, "公司法人人格否认与单位犯罪", 当代法学, (8), pp.115~ (2002)
- 潘华山, "法人人格的滥用及其否认", 法学, (3), pp.51~ (1998)
- 孙军工, "<关于审理单位犯罪案件具体应用法律有关问题的解释>的理解和适用, In 刑事审判参考", pp.83~87 (1999), 法律出版社
- Zhu Ciyun, "Legal Research on Disregard of Corporate Personality", pp.75~99 (1998), Law Press
- Chen Xianjie, "Legal Comment on Disregard of Corporate Personality", Translation and Review on Foreign Law, 3, pp.82~ (1996)
- Cai Lidong, "On Disregard of Corporate Personality, In Civil and Commercial Law Review", pp.327~ (1994), Law Press
- Jiang Ping, "On Legal Person", pp.3~ (1995), China University of Political Science and Law press
- Zheng Yongkuan, "On Disregard of Corporate Personality", Modern Jurisprudence, 3, pp.89~ (2005)
- W. Cecil Turner, "Kenny Criminal Code", pp.82~ (1989), China Press
- Sanborn, J, "in United States v. Milwaukee Refrigerator Transit Co., 142F.2d247,255(C.C.E.D.Wis.1905)", ~ (1905)
- Daisumi Kenichiro, "The Jurisprudence of Disregard of Corporate Personality, Some Issues on the Accountant Law", pp.1~2 (1958), Faith Church
- Qu Linli, "Disregard of Corporate Personality and Corporate Crime", Contemporary Law Review, 8, pp.115~ (2002)
- Pan Huashan, "Abuse and Disregard of Corporate Personality", Law Review, 3, pp.51~ (1998)
- Jungong, "Understanding and Application, On Hearing the Unit Crime Case Specific Application Problems Related to the Interpretation of the Law, Reference for Criminal Trial, Vol. 3", pp.83~87 (1999), Law Press