Joint Commission of a Crime

陈兴良

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2001.03.005

2001-01-01

Abstract:This dissertation is concerned with the fundamental theory of the joint commission of a crime and makes a research on the constitutive elements of an individual co-offender and the relevant criminal liability through analyzing the definitions of the joint offense, the principal offender as well as the accomplice.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On the Formal Structure of Unit Crime

Ye Liangfang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-1707.2008.06.013

2008-01-01

Abstract:The current law on corporate criminal liabilities is based on the premise that corporate crime is one offence,which gives birth to many inextricable theoretic knots.Hence,it is essential to re-examine the structural pattern of corporate crime and distribute the liabilities properly between the guilty corporation and its executives.In fact the said term"corporate crime",is a special combination of offences.It includes two types of offences:one is a substantial offence committed by corporate executives,while the other an ar- tificial offence drawn up by legislators,namely the original meaning of corporate crime.Because of"strive for benefit for corporation",the executives'behavior can be evaluated dually under the law.Thus it is rea- sonable to combine the two types of offences.But the liabilities of guilty corporation and its executives are mutually exclusive and separate,neither interdependent nor substitutive.Therefore,prosecutors should charge corporation or its executives with a particular offence respectively.
Reconsideration of Distribution of Liabilities of Crime Committed by an Entity

YE Liang-fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2008.01.012

2008-01-01

Abstract:The legislation providing that an entity may commit a crime and should be subject punishment bears a tinge of "rigidness but not severity." However,for a long time,while misunderstanding the structure of "entity crime," people have been seeking to determine liabilities born by the entity or the representatives thereof within the framework of one criminal act.Consequently,there appear many contradictions and conflicts both in legislative theories and judicial practice.Thus,it is urgent to reconsider the structure pattern of the crime committed by an entity.In deed,it contains two crimes:one perpetrated by the representatives of an entity which is physical while the other committed by the entity which is fictitious.The two crimes are closely linked but they are two criminal acts separate from each other and cannot be held an accomplice.As such,the entity and the representatives thereof are parallel and independent subjects of crime whose liabilities should be attributed to their respective acts.
On the Localization Construction of Enterprise Compliance Institution From the Perspective of Criminal Integration

Ye Liangfang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6274.2023.02.010

2023-01-01

Abstract:Enterprise compliance is a judicial incentive institution established for the enterprises involved in committing crimes. Its purpose is to encourage enterprises to actively reform compliance by preferential rewards of non-criminalization and non-penalization. Currently, the biggest obstacle to implementation is the institution’s legitimacy. The reason why the judicial preferential treatment brought by this institution does not violate the basic principles of criminal law, such as statutory punishment and balanced punishment, is difficult to prove adequately if only explained by the institution of leniency in pleading guilty. The idea of criminal integration is highly compatible with the institution of enterprise compliance, which can provide a theoretical basis. From the macro level, “crime governance is social governance”, which is a basic claim of the former, is a theoretical basis for the latter to prevent and control corporate crime. From the micro level, the former’s claims of criminalization, light punishment, non-incarceration punishment, dynamism, and openness can provide specific rules for the latter. Guided by the idea of criminal integration, it is necessary to clarify the institution’s target and path during its localization construction.
From Offenses Counting to Concurrence: an Academic Advancement

CHEN Xing-liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-2397.2011.03.10

2011-01-01

Abstract:Offenses counting, a doctrine in Chinese criminal law study,is characterized by determination of whether the offender's act(s) constitutes one or multiple offenses and centers on identification of the special form of one single crime perpetrated,which is of great significance in terms of concurrent sentencing.The doctrine was introduced from Japan in the 1980th and has as of attained remarkable development while incorporated with China's criminal law rules.In recent years,with more German criminal law principles keeping rushing in,a theoretical regime with the doctrine of concurrence as its corner stone has been established and academics began to turn from offenses counting to concurrence,the process of which witnesses the rapid advancement of China's criminal jurisprudential studies.
Theory of Criminal Constitutive Elements:Relationship Confusion and Conquer

周光权

2003-01-01

Abstract:The theory of crime constitution in the criminology of China has not properly dealt with the following relationships between the five pairs of opposite categories: form and substance, prosecution and defense, objectiveness and subjectiveness, experience and norm, static state and process. The theory cannot self-support and must be reasonably improved. There might be a lot of ways to settle the limitations in the theory of crime constitution. One of the ways worth considering is to make judgment about the crime establishment in different “hierarchy” according to the doctrine of criterion violation, but not the doctrine of legal interest violation. At different stages of evaluation, the issues such as “criterion expectation”,“criterion destruction”, and “criterion re-construction”.
Qualification of a crime jointly committed with a criminally unliaible person

V. M. Stepashin,I. A. Shekhovtsov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2023.7(4).116-125

2024-01-09

Law Enforcement Review

Abstract:The subject. The qualification’s problem of a crime jointly committed by two or more people, only one of whom is criminally liable, is ambiguously resolved. It is shown that there is a case law tendency to bring into the scope of criminal liability all of people, who have participated in committing a crime together, as accomplices and co-perpetrators. However, it does not correspond to the main theory of complicity, according to which a group of perpetrators being a form of complicity consists exclusively of criminally liable offenders. And, moreover, there is a plenty of sentences, in which courts confirm that a criminally unliaible person is not able to be one of accomplices and co-perpetrators, as a consequence another offender is individually responsible for committing a crime. The goal of the study is to determine whether joint commission of a crime by two or more people, only one of whom is criminally liable, constitutes complicity and a group of perpetrators. General (analysis, synthesis) and private scientific (formal-dogmatic, historical-legal) methods are used to achieve the goal. The main results. In case law qualification of joint commission of a crime by two or more people, only one of whom is criminally liable, has gone through several stages in its development and directly depended on a type of the crime. Regional case law often does not coincide with the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. There are three main theories in criminal law science, according to which joint commission of a crime by some people, only one of whom is criminally liable: (a) forms both complicity and a group; (b) does not form either complicity or a group; (c) forms a group without signs of complicity. Conclusion. Joint commission of a crime by two or more people, only one of whom is criminally liable, constitutes a group of perpetrators without signs of complicity. The interpretation dividing complicity and a group of perpetrators into two different institutions allows to take into account a group way of committing a crime as a feature of the objective side and define criminally liable offenders.
Joint Commitment of a Crime in the Doctrine of Russian Criminal Law (Middle XIX Century – 1917). Part 1

E. V. Georgievskiy,R. V. Kravtsov,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26516/2071-8136.2023.2.62

2023-01-01

Siberian Law Herald

Abstract:This paper examines the views of Russian scientists who had a significant impact on the formation of the institution of joint commission of a crime in Russian pre-revolutionary criminal law. At the same time, specific historical and comparative (comparative legal) methods are used to study the legal nature of the institution of joint commission of a crime. The authors come to the conclusion that this institution from the middle of the XIX century. develops much more intensively than before. Theoretical provisions on the joint commission of a crime, which mainly include complicity and implication, are published not only in textbooks and author’s lecture courses, but also in rather detailed monographic studies. The general approach to determining the types of accomplices, forms and types of complicity is beginning to be unified. The first attempts are being made to define the concepts of complicity and implication. In practice, a single terminological apparatus is being formed. At the same time, the difference in approaches to the total volume of the institution of joint commission of a crime is also obvious. Some researchers are trying to expand the concept of joint commission of a crime by including not only complicity, but also other forms, others are trying to cover the maximum possible number of cases of joint commission of a crime with the concept of complicity.
Features of Fixing of Joint Commission of Crime in Legislation of Some the States of the Ancient East and the Epoch of Antiquity

E.V. Georgievskiy,R.V. Kravtsov,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26516/2071-8136.2020.4.59

2020-01-01

Siberian Law Herald

Abstract:A study of the joint commission of a crime as a legal phenomenon, which is enshrined in the written legislative acts of the first state formations of the Ancient East and some states of the era of antiquity, is carried out. The article considers the norms of a criminal-legal nature, which include certain provisions concerning the joint commission of a crime. Analyzed the basic laws of Ancient Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, Assyria, India, China and Japan, Greece and Rome. The analysis was made of the norms of a criminal-legal nature, in which provisions on joint infliction of harm are mentioned in one way or another. Possible types of joint commission of a crime and persons jointly participating in the commission of unlawful acts, the grounds and limits of criminal responsibility, types of group entities within which crimes are jointly committed have been established. A number of theoretical provisions have been identified and systematized, reflecting the criminal law views of the legislators of the Ancient East and Antiquity on the socially dangerous nature and harmfulness of the joint crime. It is determined that the ancient oriental and ancient legislators consolidate the first provisions concerning the joint commission of a crime casuistically, that is, fixing specific cases in the “body” of the norms; in the legislation such structures of crime are fixed, the commission of which alone seems either unlikely or impossible; Among the possible types of joint commission of a crime, the legislator pays more attention to the implication, expressed in concealment, non-reporting or connivance. It is argued that this is due to the excellent degree of public danger of such cases, since it is they that create the determination in others to commit a crime.
Foundation of Liability in Offense of Joint Negligence

Zi-li GUO,li-hong SUN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-1565.2005.05.002

2005-01-01

Abstract:According to the traditional ideas,the foundation of liability in joint negligence is laid by the essential doctrine of joint offense.Since offense of joint negligence involves with the foundation of negligent offense,it differs from the ordinary intentional crime.The liability in offense of joint negligence should be discussed from the natures of joint offense and negligent offense.Among various doctrines concerning the nature of joint offense,breach of joint duty of care contains not only the mental connection of coactors but also the objective connection of joint behavior.On the basis of mental connection,joint behavior and the breach of joint duty of care as well as the relationship among them,the author believes that the essential foundation in the offense of joint negligence is the duty of coactors' supervision over each other.
An Academic Evolution of the Concurrence of Multiple Criminal Clauses:An Investigation in Its Academic History

Chen Xingliang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2011.04.019

2011-01-01

Abstract:The concurrence of multiple criminal clauses is a theoretical problem with characteristics in Chinese criminal law theory.It plays an important role in terms of properly understanding the criminal legislation and the application of criminal clauses.It is a gradual academic process from the introduction of the concept to the domestication of the concurrence of multiple criminal clauses,which is also the developing process of Chinese criminal law scholarship.The understanding and application of such principles as "severer clauses should be preferred to lenient clauses" in the concurrence of multiple criminal clauses is closely connected to the principle of legality.It can be said that the academic history of the concurrence of multiple criminal clauses is a mirror of the development of Chinese criminal law theory.
On the Elements of Joint Dangerous Act

CHENG Xiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2010.02.007

2010-01-01

Abstract:Art.10 of Tort Law of PRC stipulates the joint dangerous act.The norm aims at removing plaintiff's difficulty in proving the causation.All of explanations about elements of joint dangerous act should be kept to this purpose.Apart from the fundamental elements,there are two important elements of the joint dangerous act.Firstly,all defendants participated in one act which is very dangerous to the victim's right or legal interests.Secondly,the causation in fact is unclear and alternative.It means that the tortfeasor can not be identified and must be concealed in the defendants.Moreover,it is an important passive element of the joint dangerous act that all defendants have not conspiracy.This element distinguishes the joint dangerous act from other joint torts.
The Participation of Qualification Offender:from the Perspective of Comparative Law

Chen Xingliang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16290/j.cnki.1674-5205.2013.04.019

2013-01-01

Abstract:The relationship between participation and qualification is a relatively problematic issue in criminal theory. Since German,Japanese and Taiwan of penal codes embody specific provisions on this issue,the doctrine on the qualification offender of participation is formed accordingly. There is no general provision on participation and qualification in Chinese Penal Code,while there are certain relevant special provisions in the special part of penal code and judicial interpretation. And these provisions have also undergone a process of evolution. In this article,the author will adopt the doctrine of participation of qualification offender in German-Japanese criminal theory to analyze in details the conviction and sentencing of participation of qualification offender by combining China’s Penal Code and its judicial interpretation. This article is meaningful not only in terms of understanding the participation of qualification offender from doctrinal perspective,but also in the respect of improving the legislation and judicial practice of participation and qualification.
The Criminal Composition: Value Conflict and System Construction

Sun Guoxiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-9428.2007.02.022

2007-01-01

Abstract:Distinct opinions about the criminal composition reflect actually the value conflict within the system itself. The criminal composition will be probably the normality of the criminal judicial system in post rule-of-law period, while in the society of the rule of law, it is still significant to be advocated and attempted. In process of advancing the criminal composition, it is of necessity to guide and regulate this system to gradually integrate it into the criminal procedure of China and by which ameliorate the criminal justice.
Analysis of Controversial Issues on Joint Dangerous Act

YE Jinqiang

2012-01-01

Abstract:The joint dangerous act belongs to the joint tort where the person liable can't be determined.The joint dangerous act and the joint tort where the portion of liability can't be determined together constitute the type of objective joint tort.The possible causation justifies joint and several liability in the objective joint tort,so one who adduces evidence to prove that there is no causation between his behaviour and the damage could be exempted from liability.The system of joint dangerous act also applies to the area of liability without fault.The distinctions of joint tort between the joint dangerous act and the joint negligence mainly depend on whether actors are common negligence.That tortfeasors' conducts where it is possible to foresee and avoid the damage are based on consistent behaviour arrangements characterizes the joint negligence.
The Concept of Act and the Concept of Actor in the System of Criminal Participation

江溯

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-1254.2009.07.006

2009-01-01

Abstract:The fundamental issue in the system of criminal participation is how to solve the problem of personal responsibility in the collective phenomena,that is,how to attribute the consequences caused by collective phenomena to the individuals. To solve this fundamental issue,two different systems of criminal participation have been developed in the criminal legislation,i.e.,differentiate system and unitary system. Unitary is more reasonable since it has more alliance with the principle of personal responsibility.
Evolution of cooperation with joint liability

Guocheng Wang,Qi Su,Long Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2022.0082

IF: 4.293

2022-03-01

Journal of The Royal Society Interface

Abstract:‘Personal responsibility’, one of the basic principles of social governance, requires one to be accountable for what one does. However, personal responsibility is far from the only norm ruling human interactions, especially in social and economic activities. In many collective communities such as among enterprise colleagues and family members, one’s personal interests are often bound to others’—once one member breaks the rule, a group of people have to bear the punishment or sanction. Such a mechanism is termed ‘joint liability’. Although many real-world cases have evidenced that joint liability can help to maintain collective collaboration, a deep and systematic theoretical analysis on how and when it promotes cooperation remains lacking. Here, we use evolutionary game theory to model an interacting system with joint liability, where one’s losing credit could deteriorate the reputation of the whole group. We provide the analytical condition to predict when cooperation evolves and analytically prove that in the presence of punishment, being jointly liable greatly promotes cooperation. Our work stresses that joint liability is of great significance in promoting current economic prosperity.

multidisciplinary sciences
Criminal Compromise:A New Penalty Reform Notion

LI Hong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-8003.2006.04.002

2006-01-01

Abstract:At present,in the process of justice reform,it has become a hot topic that set up a penalty system which ensure the interest of aggrieved person as well as overcome abuse of traditional penalty.At present,in the reform of penalty system,we can use for reference of west society,introduce into criminal compromise.The theory of criminal compromise is beneficial to the understanding of criminal liability,it has important significant to change that from traditional morality and justice liability theory to modern social liability theory.
The Structure of Crime's Shaping Effect on Penal Code:A Historical Review of the Relationship between German Penal Code and the Structure of Crime

JIANG Su

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-4608.2013.01.011

2013-01-01

Abstract:The relationship between the penal code and the structure of crime is the prerequisite for the discussion on the structure of crime. In response to this issue,the scholars who argue for the retention of the former Soviet's theory of the structure of crime have proposed that Penal Code determine the structure of crime. Through a historical analysis of the relationship between German penal codes and their theories of the structure of crime,we can see that the definition of crime,wrongdoing and culpability are not the product of penal codes. On the contrary,they are the theoretical product of German criminal law scholars. More importantly,the theory of the basic structure of crime has shaped the improvement of German penal codes. The construction of Chinese theory of the structure of crime should not be restricted to China's Penal Code. Therefore,there is no barrier to the introduction of German theory of the structure of crime.
A Comprehensive Critic on the Unitary System of Complicity

JIANG Su

2011-01-01

Abstract:The logical starting-point of the differentiate system of complicity is the restrictive concept of actor.Based on this wrong starting-point,the following problems come out with the differentiate system of complicity:the impossibility of differentiating the principal and the accomplice,the principle of the accessory violating the criminal principle of personal responsibility and the theory of punishable accomplice being incorrect.Therefore,the differentiate system of complicity should not be adopted.Chinese Penal Code has adopted a unitary system.In this sense,the theory of differentiate system should be abandoned.
Methodology of Criminal Jurisprudence

陈兴良

2005-01-01

Abstract:Under the principle of a prescribed punishment for a specified crime, the application of criminal law depends largely on the accurate interpretation and the logical reasoning. Criminologists should focus on the methodology of legal argumentation. It is necessary to integrate theory with practice and analyze concretely such issues as the analogical interpretation, etc.

Joint Commission of a Crime

On the Formal Structure of Unit Crime

Reconsideration of Distribution of Liabilities of Crime Committed by an Entity

On the Localization Construction of Enterprise Compliance Institution From the Perspective of Criminal Integration

From Offenses Counting to Concurrence: an Academic Advancement

Theory of Criminal Constitutive Elements:Relationship Confusion and Conquer

Qualification of a crime jointly committed with a criminally unliaible person

Joint Commitment of a Crime in the Doctrine of Russian Criminal Law (Middle XIX Century – 1917). Part 1

Features of Fixing of Joint Commission of Crime in Legislation of Some the States of the Ancient East and the Epoch of Antiquity

Foundation of Liability in Offense of Joint Negligence

An Academic Evolution of the Concurrence of Multiple Criminal Clauses:An Investigation in Its Academic History

On the Elements of Joint Dangerous Act

The Participation of Qualification Offender:from the Perspective of Comparative Law

The Criminal Composition: Value Conflict and System Construction

Analysis of Controversial Issues on Joint Dangerous Act

The Concept of Act and the Concept of Actor in the System of Criminal Participation

Evolution of cooperation with joint liability

Criminal Compromise:A New Penalty Reform Notion

The Structure of Crime's Shaping Effect on Penal Code:A Historical Review of the Relationship between German Penal Code and the Structure of Crime

A Comprehensive Critic on the Unitary System of Complicity

Methodology of Criminal Jurisprudence