No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Trial and Error—A Critique of the New German Draft Code for a Genuine Corporate Criminal Liability
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Abstract
The following article aims to analyze the first German draft bill concerning a corporate criminal code. The draft bill, recently introduced by the federal state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, led to a transformation of a theoretical academic discussion towards a specific proposal on potential future legislation. Firstly, the article introduces underlying reasons for the draft based on deficiencies of the current legislation. Current regulations solely provide corporate administrative responsibility for criminal offenses committed by a corporation's management (involving huge fines). Subsequently, the article reviews the content of the draft, specifically the multiplicity of proposed criminal and other penalties. The authors intend to demonstrate that the draft is often too vague or—especially with regard to penalties—simply over the top. The applicable sanctions – which may be combined- would lead to a more draconic punishment than in any other comparable legal system. Furthermore, regarding the principles of due process and strict legality the proposed procedural rules of the draft are not satisfying. After all, the proposed procedural measures to safeguard the proceedings and the rules on representation and defense counsel are deficient.
- Type
- Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2015 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 See Gesetzesentwurf eines Verbandsstrafgesetzbuchs [VerbStGB-E] [Corporate Criminal Code], presented in 2013, Bundsrat Drucksachen [BR] 1/13 (Ger.), https://dicoev.de/fileadmin/PDF/PDF_Intranet_2013/Unternehmensstrafrecht/2013-10-15_Entwurf_zum_Unternehmensstrafrecht.pdf [hereinafter VerbStGB-E].Google Scholar
2 Löffelmann, Der Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung der strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit von Unternehmen und sonstigen Verbänden, JR 2014, 185 (186), available at http://www.nrw.de/landesregierung/justizministerkonferenz-begruesst-die-gesetzesinitiative-von-nrw-zum-unternehmensstrafrecht-15084/.Google Scholar
3 Rübenstahl & Tsambikakis, , Neues Unternehmensstrafrecht: Der NRW-Gesetzentwurf zur Einführung der strafrechtlichen, 7/2014 ZWH (2014) 8; Kirsch, Völkerstrafrechtliche Risiken unternehmerischer Tätigkeit, 6/2014, NZWiSt 212 (2014); Kindler, Unternehmensstrafrecht und individuelle sanktionsrechtliche Haftungsrisiken, 4/2014 (2014), 134. In detail about dogmatic concerns, see Hoven, Der nordrhein-westfälische Entwurf eines Verbandsstrafgesetzbuchs – Eine kritische Betrachtung von Begründungsmodell und Voraussetzungen der Straftatbestände, ZIS 19 (2014), http://www.zis-online.com/dat/artikel/2014_1_790.pdf.Google Scholar
4 See Rübenstahl, Markus, Contra: Deutschland braucht kein (solches) Unternehmensstrafrecht, 1/14 ZRFC 26 (2014), available at http://www.compliancedigital.de/ce/contra-deutschland-braucht-kein-solches-unternehmensstrafrecht/detail.html.Google Scholar
5 VerbStGB-E at 1.Google Scholar
6 Kutschaty, , Deutschland braucht ein Unternehmensstrafrecht, 3/2013 ZRP 74, 75 (2013).Google Scholar
7 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26; Haubner, Der Gesetzentwurf Nordrhein-Westfalens zur Einführung eines Unternehmensstrafrechts, 24/2014 DB 1358 (2014).Google Scholar
8 Even the negligent constitution of a mere administrative offense also by omission shall be sufficient.Google Scholar
9 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26.Google Scholar
10 See Kutschaty, , supra note 6, at 75.Google Scholar
11 See id. Google Scholar
12 Richtlinien für das Strafverfahren und das Bußgeldverfahren [RiStBV] [Rules of Action for Criminal Proceedings], Sept. 2014, No. 180a (4) (Ger.) available at http://www.verwaltungsvorschriften-im-internet.de/bsvwvbund_01011977_420821R5902002.htm.Google Scholar
13 See Kutschaty, , supra note 6, at 75.Google Scholar
14 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 27.Google Scholar
15 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 27.Google Scholar
16 VerbStGB-E at 2.Google Scholar
17 See Rübenstahl, & Tsambikakis, , supra note 3, at 8–9.Google Scholar
18 Constitutional requirement in accordance with Arts. 1 & 20 III. See Grundesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Grundegesetz] [gg] [basic law], May 23, 1949, BGBl. I, arts. 1, 20 III.Google Scholar
19 VerbStGB-E at 29.Google Scholar
20 Bundesverfassungsgericht, [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], Oct. 25, 1996, Case No. II BvR 506/34 paras. 20, 323, 336.Google Scholar
21 VerbStGB-E § 4 at 9.Google Scholar
22 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26–27.Google Scholar
23 In accordance with Art. 20 III GG.Google Scholar
24 See Bundesgesetzblatt, , Teil I [BGBl. I] at 1738; Witte & Wagner, Die Gesetzesinitiative Nordrhein-Westfalens zur Einführung eines Unternehmensstrafrechts, 12/2014 BB 643 (2014).Google Scholar
25 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26.Google Scholar
26 VerbStGB-E at 2 (containing further references).Google Scholar
27 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 28.Google Scholar
28 D.Lgs. 231/2001; see Rübenstahl, Strafrechtliche Unternehmenshaftung in Italian, 8/2012 RIW 505, 508 (2012).Google Scholar
29 See Rübenstahl, & Skoupil, , Anforderungen der US-Behörden an Compliance-Programme nach dem FCPA und deren Auswirkung auf die Strafverfolgung von Unternehmen, 6/2013 209 (2013).Google Scholar
30 VerbStGB-E § 1 at 7–8.Google Scholar
31 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4; Rübenstahl, supra note 28; Rübenstahl, Der Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) der USA Part 1, 11/2012, NZWiSt 2012; see also Rübenstahl, Der Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) der USA Part 2, 1/2013, NZWiSt 2013, 13.Google Scholar
32 Witte, & Wagner, , supra note 24, at 643–44.Google Scholar
33 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 28.Google Scholar
34 In particular, see Abgabenordnung [AO] [Fiscal Code], Oct. 1, 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I. [BGBl. I] §§ 51, 61– 63; Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code] § 266.Google Scholar
35 See Ordnungswidrigkeitsgesetz [OWiG] [Administrative Offenses Act], Feb. 19, 1987, [juris GmbH] § 130.Google Scholar
36 Witte, & Wagner, , supra note 24, at 643–44; VerbStGB-E § 1.Google Scholar
37 Hoven, Wimmer Schwarz, & Schumann, , Der nordrhein-westfälische Entwurf eines Verbandsstrafegesetzes – Kritische Anmerkungen aus Wissenschaft un Praxis Teil 1, 5/2014 NZWiSt 161, 163 (2014).Google Scholar
38 Correctly criticizing the fact, that offenses against the association—for example, embezzlement—shall be “related to the association” in that sense. Hoven, Wimmer, Schwarz, & Schumann, supra note 38, at 161, 163– 164.Google Scholar
39 VerbStGB-E § 1(2) at 7.Google Scholar
40 VerbStGB-E § 1(3)(d) at 8.Google Scholar
41 VerbStGB-E § 1(3); see OWiG § 30 I.Google Scholar
42 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26, 28.Google Scholar
43 VerbStGB-E § 1(4) at 8; see OWiG § 30(2)(a).Google Scholar
44 VerbStGB-E at 45.Google Scholar
45 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 29.Google Scholar
46 In the style of OWiG § 130.Google Scholar
47 The draft and its explanation do not explain whether negligently infringement shall be attributable when only intentional infringement is punishable for the individual. See VerbStGB-E at 46.Google Scholar
48 VerbStGB-E at 36, 45.Google Scholar
49 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 29.Google Scholar
50 VerbStGB-E § 4(1) at 9.Google Scholar
51 VerbStGB-E § 4(2) at 9.Google Scholar
52 VerbStGB-E § 3(1) at 8; StGB § 73.Google Scholar
53 VerbStGB-E at 57.Google Scholar
54 VerbStGB-E at 58.Google Scholar
55 Cramer, & Pananis, , Kartellrecht GWB, § 81 marg, 59 (2009).Google Scholar
56 VerbStGB-E § 6(5).Google Scholar
57 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 30.Google Scholar
58 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE] [Federal Constitutional Court], July 16, 1969, Case No. II BvL 2/69 at paras. 18, 27, 33.Google Scholar
59 As well in antitrust law. See Cramer & Pananis, supra note 56.Google Scholar
60 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26, 30; Görtz, Unternehmensstrafrecht: Entwurf eines Verbandstrafgesetzbuchs, 1/2014, WiJ 7 (2014), available at www.wi-j.de/index.php/de/wij/aktuelle-ausgabe/item/244-unternehmensstrafrecht-entwurf-eines-verbandsstrafgesetzbuchs.Google Scholar
61 VerbStGB-E § 3(1) at 8; in detail about difficulties of the perpetration of an offense, see Mitsch, Täterschaft & Teilnahme bei der Verbandsstraftat, 1/2014 NZWiSt 1, 4 (2014).Google Scholar
62 Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], Mar. 21, 2002, Case No. 5 StR 138/01, para. 477.Google Scholar
63 Rübenstahl, Anwaltskommentar-StGB, § 73 marg. 61a-61g (2014).Google Scholar
64 Görtz, supra note 61, at 3, 4.Google Scholar
65 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26, 31.Google Scholar
66 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 28, at 505; Rübenstahl & Boerger, Der Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) der USA Part 4, 8/2013 NZStWi 281 (2013); see also Rübenstahl & Boerger, Der Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) der USA Part 5, 10/2013 NZStWi 267 (2013); Rübenstahl & Skoupil, supra note 29, at 209.Google Scholar
67 VerbStGB-E § 2(4) at 8; see StGB § 261(5); VerbStGB-E at 50.Google Scholar
68 VerbStGB-E § 2(4) at 8.Google Scholar
69 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26, 31. Also in favor of a rule similar to section 30(2)(a) OWiG, see Görtz, supra note 60, at 8.Google Scholar
70 See StGB § 46a II; VerbStGB-E § 5(1) at 9; Hein, Verbandsstrafgesetzbuch (VerbStrG-E) – Bietet der Entwurf Anreize zur Vermeidung von Wirtschafskriminalität in Unternehmen?, 2/2014 CCZ 75, 77 (2014) (criticizing the use the draft makes often termed “damage”).Google Scholar
71 VerbStGB-E § 5 at 9–10.Google Scholar
72 Rübenstahl & Skoupil, , supra note 29, at 209; Görtz, supra note 61.Google Scholar
73 Rübenstahl & Skoupil, , supra note 29, at 209; Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 32.Google Scholar
74 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26, 32.Google Scholar
75 See Grundgesetz [GG] [Basic Law] arts. 2 I & 20 III.Google Scholar
76 Hein, , supra note 70, at 75, 78.Google Scholar
77 VerbStGB-E §§ 7–8 at 11.Google Scholar
78 Rübenstahl, supra note 4, at 26, 32.Google Scholar
79 VerbStGB-E at 26.Google Scholar
80 See Görtz, supra note 61.Google Scholar
81 VerbStGB-E §§ 10–11 at 12.Google Scholar
82 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 33.Google Scholar
83 See VerbStGB-E § 13(1) at 13; for more details, see VerbStGB-E §§ 13(3), 15–16, 21–22 at 13–14, 17.Google Scholar
84 VerbStGB-E § 15(3) at 14.Google Scholar
85 VerbStGB-E § 14(1) at 13.Google Scholar
86 VerbStGB-E § 14(2) at 13.Google Scholar
87 See Rübenstahl, & Tsambikakis, supra note 3, at 8, 11.Google Scholar
88 Hoven, et al., supra note 38, at 210.Google Scholar
89 VerbStGB-E § 14(3) at 13–14.Google Scholar
90 VerbStGB-E § 14(2) at 13.Google Scholar
91 VerbStGB-E § 14(3) at 13–14.Google Scholar
92 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 33.Google Scholar
93 See Rübenstahl, & Tsambikakis, , supra note 3, at 8, 12.Google Scholar
94 See StGB § 283(1)(1).Google Scholar
95 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 33.Google Scholar
96 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 33.Google Scholar
97 See VerbStGB-E §§ 13(1)&(3) at 13; StPO § 111(b); StGB at § 73.Google Scholar
98 Not targets of a criminal investigation. See Hoven et al., supra note 38, at 201, 204, 206.Google Scholar
99 VerbStGB-E § 17(1) at 15.Google Scholar
100 See Rübenstahl, & Tsambikakis, , supra note 3, at 8, 12.Google Scholar
101 VerbStGB-E § 18(1) at 15.Google Scholar
102 StPO § 146.Google Scholar
103 VerbStGB-E § 18(2) at 15.Google Scholar
104 VerbStGB-E at 77.Google Scholar
105 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 33.Google Scholar
106 See Rübenstahl, & Tsambikakis, , supra note 3, at 8, 12.Google Scholar
107 VerbStGB-E § 19(1) at 15–16.Google Scholar
108 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 33; Hoven et al., supra note 38, at 201, 205.Google Scholar
109 Grundegesetz [GG] [Basic Law] arts. 2(1) & 20(3).Google Scholar
110 Görtz, supra note 61, at 10.Google Scholar
111 See Rübenstahl, , supra note 4, at 26, 34.Google Scholar