PUBLICATIONS
OF THE MASARYK UNIVERSITY
theoretical series, edition Scientia
File No. 566
CORPORATE CRlMINAL LIABILITY
(in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland)
Marek Fryšták, Jozef Čentéš,
Jaroslaw Szczechowicz et al.
Masaryk University
Brno 2016
Vzor citace:
FRYŠTÁK, Marek; ČENTÉŠ, Jozef; SZCZECHQWICZ, Jarosfaw let aL). Corporate crimina/liobility: (in the Czech
Republic, S/ovakia and Pa/and).lst edition. Brno; Masaryk University, 2016. 255 p. PubHcations ofthe Masaryk
University, theoretica! series, edition Scientia, File No. 566. ISBN 978-80-210-8382-0.
CIP - Katalogizace v knize
Fryšták, Marek
Corporate criminalliability : {in the Czech Republlc, Slovakia and Poland) / Marek Fryšták, Jozef Čentéš,
Jarosfaw Szczechowicz et aL -1st edition. -- Brno: Masaryk University, 2016. 255 stran. - Publications ofthe
Masaryk Un'lversity, theoretical series, edition Scientla; Rle. No. 566. ISBN 978-80-210-8382-0 (brož.)
343.222* 347.19* {437.3)* (437.6)* (438)* {048.8)*
- trestní odpovědnost
- právnické osoby
- Česko
- Slovensko
- Polsko
- monografie
343 - Trestní právo [16j
Trus pubJication was supported by tbe The Ministry of Education, Youtb
and Sports - Institutiona! Support for Longterm Development of Research
Organization - Masaryk University, Faculty of Law.
Trus monograph was not subjected to language revision.
Reviewers:
Prof. JUDr. Jaroslav Fenyk, Ph.D., DSc., Univ. Priv. Prof.
Prof. JUDr. ]ozef Záhora, PhD.
© 2016 Masaryk University
ISBN 978-80-210-8382-0
- - - _ _ _ o _ _ _ _ _ __
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction................................................................. .................................................9
CZECH REPUBLlC
I Fundaments oť Corporate Criminal Liability ........................... 15
Ll Introduction ......................................................................................... 15
L2 Excluded Jiability of some lega! entities for a crimina! offence ... 20
L3 Range of crimina! offences................................................................ 22
L4 Cornrnittiv.g of crimina! offence by lega! entity.............................. 24
L5 Offender, accompJice and participant.............................................. 29
L6 Crimina!liability of a lega! successor of lega! entity...................... 30
L7 Effective remorse ................................................................................ 31
L8 Limitation of crimina! Jiability........................................................... 32
L9 Exceptions from limitation ................................................................ 33
II System oť Crinůna1 Sanctions ................................................... 35
ILl Characteristics of tbe system of sanctions...................................... 35
II.2 Fundarnenta! principles of sanctioning of lega! entities ............... 36
IL3 Types of punishments and protective measures for lega! entities41
II.4 Summary............................................................................................... 49
III Specifics oť Criminal Proceedings Against Lega1 Entities....... 51
IILl Fundarnenta! Rights of Lega! Entity in Crimina! Proceedings .... 51
IIl.1.1 Right to a fair tria] (Due Process)............................................................. 51
III.2 Stages of Crimina! Proceedings ........................................................ 52
III.2.! Pre-trial Proceedings................................................................................... 52
III.2.2 Summary Prelirninary Proceedings .......................................................... 55
1II.2.3 Institutes of Impoundage..........................................................................56
IIL3 PreJiminary Hearing of Indictrnent..................................................59
III.4 Main Tria!.............................................................................................. 59
I1J.4.! Joint Proceedings ........................................................................................61
1II.4.2 Interruption of crirninal prosecution ...................................................... 62
III.4.3 Diversions during criminal proceeclings against lega1 entities .............. 63
IIL5 Correcnve Proceedings....................................................................... 63
5
CORPORATE CRIMINAL UABILlTY (in the Czech Republic, S!ovakia and Poland)
lII.6 Enforcement Proceedi.ngs.................................................................. 64
III.6.1 Execution of punishment of dissolution of legal entity...................... 64
III.6.2 Execution of purushment of forbiddance of filling public
contracts, participation in concessional proccedings
or in public tender....................................................................................... 65
III.6.3 Execution of punishment of forbiddance of acceptance
of subsidies and subventions .................................................................... 65
II1.6.4 Punishment of publication of judgment and its execution ................. 65
IV Defence oť Lega! Entity ..........................................:;................ 67
IV.I lntroduction "'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 67
Iv.Z Rights of the accused lega1 entity ..................................................... 68
IV2.1 Compounds of right to defence............................................................... 68
rV:2.2 Right of legal entity to remain silent and its collision with right
to defence of other individual .................................................................. 69
IV2.3 Strategy of Defence of Legal Entity .......................................................73
Iv.3 Individua1s Entided to Act on Beha1f of Lega1 Entity.................. 76
IV3.1 Defence Council.......................................................................................... 79
IV3.2 Curator.......................................................................................................... 82
Iv.3.3 Practical issues of natural persons entitled to act on behalf
of legal entity...............................................................................................84
IV.4 Conclusion............................................................................................ 93
SLOVAKIA
V Fundaments of Corporate Crimina! Liability """,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 97
V.l Developrnent of Corporate Crimina1 Liability in Slovak
Republic ................................................................................................ 97
V.1.1 Proposals to Introducc So-called Gcnuine Corporate Criminal
Liability......................................................................................................... 99
Vl.2 Introduct:ion of Non-genuine Corporate Criminal Liability.............. 102
\Z1.3 Introduction of Genuine Corporate Criminal Liability...................... 106
V.Z Selected Substmtia1 Aspects of Corporate Crimina1
Liability in the Slovak Republic ....................................................... 107
V2.1 Modificat:ion of Bask Criminal Law Principles
as Consequence of Introducing Genuine Corporate Criminal
Liability....................................................................................................... 110
V.2.2 Conditions Giving Rise to Corporate Crirninal Liability.................... 115
Table of Contents
VI System oť Criminal Sanctions .................................................. 125
VI.I Basic Principles Applied in Irnposing Punishments
on Lega1 Entities................................................................................ 128
VI.2 Types of Punishments ...................................................................... 130
VI.2.1 The Punishmem of Winding-up of the Legal Entity......................... 132
VI.2.2 The Purushment of Forfeiture of Property ......................................... 133
VI,2.3 The Punishment of Forfciture of a Thing ........................................... 135
VI.2.4 The Pecuniary Punishment...................................................................... 136
VI.2.S The Punishment of Prohibition to Perform Certain Activity ........... 138
V1.2.6 Thc Punishment of Prohibition to Receive Grants a"nd Subsidies ... 140
VI.2.7 The Punishrncnt of Prohibit:ion to Receive Aid and Support
from EU Funds......................................................................................... 141
VI.2.8 The Purushment of Prohibition to Participate in Public
Procurement .............................................................................................. 142
V1.2.9 Thc Punishment of Publicat:ion of Convict:ion................................... 143
VII Specifics of Crimina! Proceedings Against Lega! Entities ...... 145
VILI Procedura1 Steps Taken by Law Enforcement Authorities
md Courts .......................................................................................... 145
VILZ Relationship between Crimina1 Proceedings md
Administrative Proceedi.ngs ............................................................. 145
VII.3 Crimina1 Prosecution against Lega1 Entities.................................. 147
VIlA Territoria1Jurisdiction...""'"''''''....................................................... 149
VIL5 Joint Proceedi.ngs ............................................................................... 150
VII.6 Restrictive md Securing Measures .................................................. 151
VIL7 Acting on Beha1f of Lega1 Entity................................................... 154
VIL8 Right of Defence (Defence Counsel) ............................................ 157
VII,9 Examination, Closing Arguments md Fina1 Word ...................... 157
VII.10 Enforcement of Punishments......................................................... 158
POLAND
VIII Fundaments of Corporate Crimina! Liability .......................... 163
IX System oť Crimina! Sanctions .................................................. 181
X Specifics oť Crimina! Proceedings Against Lega! Entities...... 207
XI Experience oť Application Practice ......................................... 227
,
6 7
1
CORPORATE CRIMINAL UABIUTY (in the Czech Republic, 810vakia and Poland)
- - - - - - - - Final
Comparison...................... .....................233
Bibliography.................................. ...................................................................................243
XLl Monographies and cornmentaries................................................... 243
Xl.2 Articles ................................................................................................ 247
XI.3 Conference Proceedings................................................................... 251
XI.4 Electronic resources .......................................................................... 254
List oť Authors ......................................................................................................................255
8
INTRODUCTION
"Lega! entities are not made of flesh and bones, yet they have organs. They
do not have any fee!ings, stili they have a will. They seem invisible, nevertheless
they act and can be summoned to be held liable for their actions. They
do not have a domicile but stili they have a place of business. For over a century
other branches of law except crimina!law acknowledge lega! existence
of these individuals that are not human beings. Crimina!law reacted hesitandy
and once it accepted crimina!liability of legal entities it did so only
in restricted range and under condition of meeting spedal requirements."1
New soda! and economic changes that struck Europe during 20"' century
and escalated in its last decade and at turn of the century inconspicuously
started to brush away and undermine exclusiveness of priuciple of individua!
crimina!liability of natural persons. Discussions and considerations over
this topic spared none of the conrinental states. It was so because present
legal instruments used to protect sodety ftom malicious and illicit actions
of lega! entities became ineffective and did not comply with its repressive
and preventive purpose. Each of the states thus had to decide whether
to desert old and established system of priuciples connected with individua!
crimina! liability of natural persons (that continenta! crimina!law was
built upon) and present genuine ar pseudo crimina!liability of lega! entities'
ar to chaose other approach (for instance strengthening of administrative
liability of lega! entities). Frequendy there were - and stili are - many arguments
for and against each of both ways.
From what was said above it is more than evident that introduction of corporate
crimina! liability is very contestable, complicated and a!so controversia!
issue. And path of genuine crimina! liability of lega! entities
is the most of all. It is because that adoption of genuine cruuinal liability
undermines priuciple of individual crimina! liability of natura! person
2
DRJ?YER, E. Dmi! péna! généraL Champs Université: Flammariofl, 2002, p. 78. In:
JELINEK, J. CriminalLiabili!J' tf LegalElltities. Prague: Linde, 2007, p. 28.
KRATOCHVÍL, V Trestrú o?povědnost právnických osob a jednáni za jiného (Stav
de lege lata, de lege fegenda v Ceské republice a Slovenské republice). Prám!)' ohzor. 2002,
issue 4, p. 366.
CORPORATE CRIMINAL LlABILlTY (in the Czech Republic, Slavakia and Paland)
which was the foundation stone of continentol criminollaw for many centuries.
Continenta! criminollaw worked with concept of offender/human
being', as it was said before - an individuol who ciUnks, feels, an individual
who has its own will - not immaterial or invisible being. Corporate crin1inal
liability (or the criminal fubility of legal entities if you please) represents
a step away from the principle of individual criminolliability. As indicated
before an adoption of genuine criminal fubility of legal entities is in direct
contradiction ,,~th the very foundations of criminal fubility in continental
legal system and thus represents a breach of integrity of stable dassical system
of criminalliability. As any other substanrial interference to any system
it may cause its weakening, instability or even collapse.
4
When considering whether to adopt genuine or false criminal liability
of legal entities we have to take a step back to date 26m
July 1995. On this
very day a Convention on the protection of the European Communities'
financial interests was adopted and signed in Brussels. Among the signing
states were all former members of European Communities and also some
of candidate countries - especially the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland.
This Convention was later amended by fitst and second protocol which
were adopted and signed on 27'1, November 1996 in Dublin and on 19
m
June
1997 in Brussels also by aforementioned candidate countries.
Artide 3 of the second protocol to Convention puts an emphasis on obligation
of every member state to take the necessary measures to ensure that
legal enrity can be held fuble for fraud, active corruprion and money laundering
committed for their benefit by any person, acting either individually
or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has (generally) a leading
position ,vithin the legal entity. According to artide 4 of the second
protocol the member states shall take necessary measures to ensure that
legal entities shall be punishable (for above mentioned actions) by effective,
proportionate and dissuasive sanctions, whieb shall inc1ude criminal
or non-criminal fines and may include other sanctions such exclusion from
At least for last four centunes. See ŠÁMAL, P., DĚDIČ,J., GŘI'VNA, T. et al. Treshlí
odpovědnostprávnických osob. Komentář. Prague: C. H. Beck, 2012, p. 1-2.
4 JELÍNEK, J. Trest1Ú odpovědnost právnických osob jako předmět zkoumárú [ooline].
Kriminalistika. 2008, issuc 1. lcitcd 26. 8. 2016]. Avai1able at: <http://wW..v.mvcr.cz/
clanek/trestni_odpovednost_pravnickych_osob_jako_predmet_zkoumani.aspx>.
10
Infroduction
enticiement to public benefits or aid, temporary or permanent disqualification
from the practice of commercial activities, placing under judicial supervision
or a judiciol winding-up order. 5
Requirement for adoption of criminalliability of legal entities olso appeared
(among other documents) in Counci! Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA
of 24mFebruary 200S on the application of the principle of mutual recognition
to financial penalties and in Counci1 Framework Decision 2006/7S3/
JHA of 6m
October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to contlscation orders. Both of these framewol'k decisions are
based on principle of mutual recognition and demand that member states
shall recognize and execute orders issued by other member states (and
imposed) against legal entity.
With adoption of criminol fubility of legal entities is also connectedDirective
200S/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Counci! of 19'1,
November 200S on the protection of the environment through criminallaw
and Directive 2009/52/ES of the European Parliament and of the Counci!
of 1S", June 2009 on providing for minimum standards on sanctions and
measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals.
It is necessary to point out, that nor Convention neither its protocols nor
other international documents do not categorically stipulate the necessity
of adoption of genuine criminalliability of legal entities. They on1y oblige
contracting parties to present liability of legal entities for their malicious
actions and leave decision whether character of this fubility will be criminol
or administrative, genuine or false strictly -within discretion of each contracting
state.
The foregoing became an impulse to create a monograph - which now lies
in your hands - as an Qutcome from cooperation of collectives of authors
from the Faculty of Law of Masaryk University in Brno (Czech Republic),
the Faculty of Law of Comenius University in Bratislava (Slovakia) and
the Faculty of Law and Administration of University of Warmia and
Mazury in Olsztyn (poland) which was written in order to present to its
FENYK, J., FRYŠTÁK, M. Protection of the finandal interests of the European
Communities in the Czech Repub1ic. In: EuropeoJ1 L:iw and Natiúlla! Crimilla/ Legis/atiofl.
Prague: Faculty of Law of Charles University, 2007, p. 116-117.
11
CORPORATE CR1M1NAL UABIUTY (in the Czech RepubHc, Slovakia and Poland)
readers in wruch ways the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland dea!t within
their nationa!legislations with demand of European Umon to adopt liability
of lega! entities and whether they choose genuine or fa!se crimina!liability
of lega! entities or they just remained with administrative liability.
The collective of authors a!so believes that trus monograph will provide
enough useful information and ensure basic orientation in this subject-matter
not just for theory but a!so for application practice and will become
inspttation for further contemplations over this topie.
For the collective of authors doc. JUDr. Marek Fryšták, Ph.D.
I 12
CZECH REPUBlIC