实质平等保护视角下民营企业内部人员背信犯罪的司法认定——以《刑法修正案(十二)》相关条文展开

Judicial Determination of Backstabbing Crimes by Insiders of Private Enterprises under the Perspective of Substantive Equal Protection

《刑法修正案(十二)》将民营企业内部人员纳入《刑法》第165条、第166条、第169条规制范围,进一步加强了民营企业产权平等保护。对于民营企业产权保护,应在形式平等之下,关注不同所有制企业内部人员实施背信犯罪的本质区别,实行差异化保护。民营企业内部人员背信犯罪的司法认定,应在与国有企业内部人员背信犯罪区分的基础之上,结合《公司法》相关规定与理论进行。具体而言,事实董事能够被解释为“董事”;控股股东或实际控制人实施相关背信犯罪的认定则需视具体情形而定;一人公司、个人独资企业、合伙企业亦能被“其他公司、企业”所涵摄。对于行为的结果,应对是否造成“重大损失”进行实质判断,避免以义务违反替代财产损失;至于“违反法律、行政法规”的认定则属于违法性判断问题,相关背信行为取得股东会或董事会同意的,原则上不构成相应背信犯罪,但特殊情况下(表决权滥用等)也可能构成犯罪。

The Amendment(Ⅻ)to the Criminal Law includes insiders of private enterprises in the scope of articles 165,166 and 169 of the Criminal Law,further strengthening the equal protection of property rights of private enterprises.For the protection of the property rights of private enterprises,under the formal equality,attention should be paid to the essential difference of the crime of breach of trust committed by insiders of enterprises of different ownership systems,and differentiated protection should be implemented.The judicial determination of the crime of breach of trust by insiders of private enterprises shall be based on the distinction between the crime of breach of trust by insiders of state-owned enterprises,combined with the relevant provisions and theories of the Company Law.Specifically,the de facto director can be interpreted as a'director';the identification of controlling shareholders or de facto controllers committing the relevant breach of trust crimes needs to be discussed in each case;and one-person companies,sole proprietorships,and partnerships can also be covered by'other companies and enterprises'.With regard to the results of the act,a substantive judgment should be made as to whether or not it has caused'significant loss',so as to avoid replacing property loss with a breach of duty.As for the determination of'violation of laws and administrative regulations',it is a matter of judgment of illegality;if the relevant breach of trust has obtained the consent of the shareholders'meeting or the board of directors,it does not,in principle,constitute a crime of breach of trust;however,it may also constitute a crime under special circumstances(abuse of voting rights,etc.).