论文部分内容阅读
企业律师面临公司涉及经济犯罪时,其责任、义务与一般刑事诉讼律师是否不同?不同于司法、行政等机关,企业律师对公司商业经营、运作情况较为了解,特别是公司内部律师。观察美国近百年的发展历史,发觉其甚至参与公司决策过程,理论上若能妥善发挥其角色,应可有效制止企业丑闻的发生。然事实上,不论企业内部或外部律师,均有角色定义不清、功能失调的问题,以致美国几十年来发生许多企业弊案。本文乃以美国于安隆(Enron)案发生后通过的沙宾法案为区分时点,探究企业律师前后不同的地位、义务及责任。
Corporate lawyers face the company involved in economic crimes, its responsibilities and obligations and general criminal lawyers are not the same? Different from the judiciary, the executive and other agencies, corporate lawyers on the company’s business operations, the operation of a more well-informed, especially the company’s internal lawyers. Observing the history of the United States for nearly a century and noticing that it even participates in the decision-making process of the company, in theory if it can properly play its role, it should be able to effectively stop the occurrence of corporate scandals. However, in fact, both internal and external lawyers have unclear and dysfunctional roles. As a result, many corporate malpractices in the United States have occurred for decades. This article explores the different status, obligations and responsibilities of corporate lawyers before and after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed by the United States in the Enron case.