摘要
法院审前参与制度在各国的司法程序中并不少见,根据外在形式的不同,法院审前参与的类型主要分为政策型、行政型以及机动型三种,且均具有一定的积极意义。在域外国家和地区,无一例外地将法院审查暂缓起诉协议视为限制公诉裁量权的解决措施,只是在法院参与后是否进行实质审查方面有所区别。在我国,鉴于公诉裁量权不断扩充、检察机关自我监督效果不佳、控辩实力失衡等问题较为严重,因而法院审前参与涉案企业合规更有其必要性。不过,法院审查合规不起诉所面临的阻力应当引起警惕,并应通过合理设置审前参与的类型予以消解。权利救济型审前参与是一种因救济受损权利而发起,并能达到限制公诉裁量权、保障涉罪企业合法权益等效果的新类型。通过对权利救济型审前参与的相关内容及保障措施加以构建,可以为涉案企业合规的健康、持久运行提供有力保障。
According to its external forms,pretrial court participation in compliance is mainly divided into three types:the policy type,the administrative type and the mobile type.They have such positive significances as avoiding the situation in which the criminal suspect is in a state of uncertain progress for a prolonged period of time,shaping"the court-centered"litigation pattern,and providing a powerful judicial safeguard for economic and social development and the protection of citizens'legitimate rights and interests.From the perspective of comparative law,all foreign countries treat the court review of the deferred prosecution agreement as a way to limit the discretion of public prosecution and,with the exception of the US,which adopted the formal review mode,all of them adopt the substantive review mode.However,the argument that,based on the need to standardize the exercise of public prosecution discretion,the court's pretrial participation can be applied to compliance-based non-prosecution seems farfetched.Admittedly,applying the existing pretrial participation types directly to the compliance of the enterprises involved in criminal cases will undoubtedly help to improve the progress of implementation and make full use of""local resources".However,an analysis shows that none of the three types of pretrial participation in compliance is able to eliminate the resistance faced by compliance-based non-prosecution.Not only so,all the existing types of pretrial participation in compliance are formed to achieve the goal of stabilizing or restoring social order,which is essentially different from the objectives of courts'pretrial participation in compliance by enterprises involved in criminal cases,namely to limit the prosecution discretion and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises involved in crime cases.As for how to design a new type of pretrial court participation in the compliance of the enterprises involved in criminal cases,firstly,a response should be given to the question of whether a cour
出处
《环球法律评论》
北大核心
2023年第6期47-62,共16页
Global Law Review
基金
广东省人民检察院企业合规检察研究基地2023年度委托课题“反思法院审前参与涉案企业合规的困境与出路”的研究成果。
