商业贿赂案件中企业法务、合规人员的责任问题
文 / 君合律师事务所上海分所武 雷、陈鲁明、刘定发
By Lei WU, Luming CHEN and DingFa “David”LIU
Jun He Law Offices Shanghai Office
如何在中国刑事司法体系下有效降低自身在商业贿赂案件中承担“高管责任”的风险，是每一名公司合规官、法务官在日常工作中所关心和考量的问题。针对这一问题，我们站在中国刑事立法、司法的双重角度上，结合实践中办理和关注的具体案例进行论述，并提供应对方法。
In daily work, for every in-house lawyerand compliance officer, how to effectively decrease risks of undertaking “senior manager’sliabilities” in commercial bribery cases under Chinese criminal law and regulations is animportant question. We will discuss respective compliance issues based on Chinese criminal law andcases we have handled.
一、“高管责任”的来源及法律依据
I.Origin of and Legal Basis for “Senior Manager’s Liabilities”
通常意义上讲，“高管责任”这个词语等同于“单位刑事犯罪案件中直接负责的主管人员所应承担的责任”。实践中，“高管”一般指首席执行官、首席财务官、法定代表人、总经理等最高决策人员，以及具有公司经营、管理控制权、审批权的财务部、法务部、合规部、内审部、人力部、各业务部门的主管人员。
Generally speaking, “senior manager’sliabilities” refer to “liabilities for which the persons in direct charge should be responsible in a unitcrime”. In practice, “senior manager” generally refers to those high-leveldecision-makers such as CEO, CFO, legal representative and general manager, andthose who have right of operation of the company, right of management andcontrol and right of approval, such as directors of financial department, legaldepartment, compliance department, internal audit department, human resourcedepartment and all those business units.
最高人民法院《全国法院审理金融犯罪案件工作座谈会纪要》第二部分第（一）项第 2条规定：“直接负责的主管人员，是在单位实施的犯罪中起决定、批准、授意、纵容、指挥等作用的人员”。
According to Section 1.2 of Article II ofthe “Minutes of the Forum on Hearing Cases of Financial Crimes by Courts Nationwide” bythe Supreme Court, “the person directly in charge and responsible for is the person making adecisive, approving, inspiring, indulging and commanding role in committing unit crimes.”
“授意”可分为明示和暗示两种情况，暗示更多时候体现为“不管合法或非法，无论采取什么手段，只要能够达到最终结果就行”这种意思表示形式。
There are two types of “inspiring role” incommitting unit crimes: expressed and acquiescent.
Usually acquiescence means “whether lawfulor not, and no matter what means to take, so long as the final goal can beachieved, the means will be viewed as acceptable.”
在“纵容”这一间接故意的情形中，被告人主观是否明知是重要考查对象。根据我国刑事法律理论，明知主要包括实际知道和应当知道。证明应当知道时，举证责任发生倒置，如果被告人主张虽然自己应当知道但实际上却并不知晓，需要提出抗辩理由并提供证据。
As a kind of indirect intent, when decidingwhether a senior manager played an “indulging role” in a unit crime case, it is importantto analyze whether the manager had knowledge of the unlawful acts committed in the company.According to Chinese criminal law, knowledge mainly includes actual knowledge and constructiveknowledge (i.e. constructive knowledge under the reasonable person standard). When provingthat the defendant should know something happening, the burden of proof shiftsto the defendant. If the defendant argues that although he or she shouldknow,the reality is that he or she does not have an actual knowledge, he or she mustraise a defense and provide evidence.
二、中国刑事法律规定与美国《反海外腐败法》规定之比较
II.Differences between Chinese Criminal Law and US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
从立法层面讲，我们认为，中国的反腐败相关法律、法规比美国《反海外腐败法》规定更加严格：1、中国反腐败相关法律适用于一切贿赂行为，不限于贿赂政府官员，还包括商业贿赂；2、中国反腐败法律处罚相当严厉，针对公司判处罚金的金额理论上没有额度上限，且对于行贿者个人判处的刑罚最高可达无期徒刑；3、中国反腐败法律下，能够构成贿赂物品的“财物”及“其他方式”涵盖面非常广，包括任何形式的费用及任何金钱性利益。
At the legislative level, we understandthat provisions in Chinese anti-bribery law and regulations are stricter than those inFCPA: (1) Chinese anti-bribery law and regulations apply to all kinds of bribery conducts (i.e. theynot only apply to providing bribes to government employees, but also to commercial briberyconducts); (2) under Chinese anti-bribery law and regulations, punishments may be verysevere. Theoretically there is not a limitation on fines that can be imposed on the defendant company,and the most severe punishment an individual briber may be faced with is life imprisonment; (3)under Chinese anti-bribery law and regulations, a wide range of monetary andnon-monetary benefits can be regarded as profits offered by briber,including any kind of fees and any kind ofbenefits of property.
因此，仅参照、依据美国《反海外腐败法》的规定来规范员工行为，可能还是无法有效避免、解决公司在中国市场的运营、管理过程中，出现和面临的一些具有本地色彩的特殊性问题。
Thus, when operating in Chinese market, toregulate employees’ behaviors and conducts only under FCPA may be inadequate to effectivelyprevent and solve the specific and localized problems raised during the operation andmanagement.
三、合规官、法务官可能遇到的问题及对策建议
III. Problems That In-house Lawyers andCompliance Officers May be Faced with and Countermeasures and Suggestions
首先，公司内部合规规定本身需要更加严谨，建议由专业人员对于内部合规进行细致审查，防止规定出现漏洞或其他可能被认定为系诱使员工违法、违规的条款。对于合规文件本身，建议增加包含处罚标准、处罚程序以及可能的处罚结果等条文在内的具体处罚细则，对于处罚流程本身进行规范。
First of all, internal rules should bestricter and more precise. Employing professionals to review internal compliance rules isrecommended to prevent provisions in those rules from being regarded as defective and as policiesencouraging the employees to act unlawfully or non-compliantly. And as to the compliancerules per se, we suggest that specific penalty provisions including standards andproceedings of punishments and possible penalties could be added in the rules, in order to govern thepunishing procedures.
其次，为了有效降低单位及“高管”被认定承担刑事责任，对于公司合规、法务人员来讲，大的框架应该是确保公司拥有好的合规加好的执行再加有效的监督检查。而监督检查又可总结为“三查一罚”，即事前审查、事中检查、事后抽查及对于违法违规人员、行为的处罚。并且，所有的审查、审计、处罚记录和报告都应妥善保存。
Secondly, for in-house lawyers andcompliance officers to effectively decrease risks of undertaking “senior manager’s liabilities”,a formula is to make sure that the company has“reasonable compliance rules + good execution of those rules +efficient supervisions with employing those rules”. Meantime weconclude that an efficient supervision includes “three supervisions + one punishment”, which meansprior approval, control in process, post-review and punishment against wrongdoer andwrongdoing. In addition, all the investigation report, audit report and punishment record should be wellkept.
此外，在公司面临外部调查时，合规官、法务官需要在依法配合政府部门、司法机关办案的同时，维护自身及公司在调查及诉讼程序中的合法权益，比如，尽量提供客观性证据、提供证据时要保证内容的全面性等。
Moreover, when being faced with externalinvestigation, while cooperating with governmental and judicial authoritiesduring their inspection, in-house lawyers and compliance staffs should try to protect the legitimaterights of themselves and of the company. For instance,try to provide objective evidence and tomake sure that the content of evidence is comprehensive.
最后，在因职责需要自身针对某一事件、行为发表意见时，倘若认为该事件、行为明显违法、违规，此时合规官、法务官可以申明保留意见，并拒绝同意，同时要求载入会议记录内容，或者就个案寻求专业法律意见后再作出决定。
Last but not least, when giving opinions onan event or a conduct while duty requires, if the event or the conduct is obviously unlawfuland non-compliant, the in-house lawyers and compliance staffs could declare dissentingopinions, refuse to agree, and request to add the dissenting opinions into record or meetingminutes. Also, in-house lawyers and compliance officers could try to make decisions afterseeking help from outside counsel.
四、小结
IV. Conclusion
综上，有效避免公司责任是降低“高管”风险的前提。在对“高管责任”进行风险控制时，需要全面考虑企业文化、经营理念、内部制度、制度执行、监督检查、记录保存等方面。特别值得注意的是，当工商机关、公安机关、检察机关前往调查可能存在的员工违法犯罪行为时，请勿试图用非法手段干扰调查。
In conclusion, to effectively preventcompany liabilities is the precondition for decreasing risks of undertaking “senior manager’sliabilities.” When trying to control the “senior manager’s liabilities” risks, company culture,operation philosophy, internal rules, execution of rules,supervisions record-keeping are factorswhich should be taken into account. Also, when industrial and commercial administration authorities,public security bureaus and prosecutors come to investigate possible law violation incompany, please do not interfere the investigation by taking
unlawful measures.
文章转载自： 君合律师事务所上海分所武 雷、陈鲁明、刘定发
文章仅用于学习交流使用，不涉及商业用途。如有侵权，小编会即时删除。
- 没有找到相关文章！
洪树涌律师法律热线：
13929585119
QQ:410287216（请注明“法律咨询”）
广州市珠江新城珠江东路6号广州周大福金融中心29楼、10楼。