Within the following traces I’ll attempt to argue why the brand new regulation of the normative compliance prison process within the Preliminary Draft Legislation on Prison Process, though it’s a guarantor, it’s too inflexible, which may have because of this that the accused firms may have it tough.

It’s not a query right here a lot of evaluating what’s contained within the Draft Draft as of verifying that are the problems which have been greatest handled or which of them have been stopped. In brief, I’ll attempt to determine what it contributes to the regulation of the prison course of as regards authorized individuals and whether or not it’s for the higher or not. Clearly, the analyzed textual content continues to be a blueprint, so it’s speculated to be topic to overview. On this sense, the legislator must be open to strategies, {qualifications} and, why not say so, to criticism concerning the legislative initiative, at all times with the intention of enhancing it.

Thus, in precept, the laws tends to make sure the contradictory intervention of the protection in all procedures associated to the authorized individual sued [1]. Evidently the legislator’s spirit is to not deprive at any time of the rights of the protection to the entity that’s within the place of responding criminally, resembling the correct to stay silent; to not testify towards herself; to not confess responsible and, even, to the final phrase.

Nevertheless, the system that’s established begins from a uncertain hypothetical premise: it’s taken without any consideration that every one firms are going to be organized in a sure means, however the pre-legislator forgets that it’s potential that it isn’t so. The legislator’s assumptions are generally met, however actual life is rather more enriching; there will probably be firms that manage the management system by somebody situated in one other means within the group chart, or by means of varied codecs of outsourced our bodies.

At present, when an entity is investigated criminally, its governing our bodies determine who’s probably the most applicable individual to characterize it in every trial. Nonetheless, this freedom of designation disappears within the present Draft. The system that’s meant to ascertain begins from the premise that the one that has to seem as consultant of the authorized entity is the one they name “Director of the Inner Management System”, That’s, the generally known as Compliance officer O Compliance Officer.

The issue, in my view, is aggravated when the laws are too inflexible and it’s required that “Director of the Inner Management System “, Who seems as a consultant, meets sure traits:

1ª; act below the direct authority of the executive physique, 2ª; with particular energy of prison authorized illustration y 3ª; even when the place was not being held on the time of the occasions.

The latter can hardly be admissible: it’s completely potential that the Compliance officer ignore the compliance and / or prevention system on the time of the occasions that give rise to company crime, and even ignore the details themselves, in order that, even, you possibly can be held accountable for ignorance. This may generate an undoubted scenario of defenselessness within the indicted authorized individual.

For instance, the corporate could have appointed an outdoor lawyer as a compliance officer; Would he must resign as protection lawyer within the case, to take a seat on the dock? That is what appears to emerge from the brand new article 81. 1º LECrim.

Here’s a clear instance of the rigidity of the system. Notice that, in part 2 of that very same article, the likelihood that nobody has been appointed to that place is contemplated. Lack of designation that’s supplemented by a designation ex officio by the Decide of Ensures on the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Workplace in the one that holds the “most actual energy of resolution within the governing or administrative physique”.

However, it’s nonetheless curious that the Official He is probably not a member of the Board, which will probably be regular, and by default the Chief Government Officer (who’s normally the physique with the best government energy) has to attend, who’s there for different issues. It follows that the legislator, in any respect prices, at all times needs the person who’s in command of inside management to characterize the authorized individual charged. However, I insist, with the three necessities beforehand expressed, it isn’t potential to assign one other procedural function to that individual.

Due to this fact, the brand new regulation instantly impacts the statute procedural regulation of the indicted authorized individual. Obligatory requires the intervention of that consultant, to the purpose that their unjustified absence could even result in the detention. In case of absence or impossibility, “the diligence with the entity’s lawyer will probably be understood.” Allow us to not overlook that the accused authorized entity could conform, with particular energy, and independently of the opposite defendants. It may well even be declared in default.

Lastly, it expressly prohibits the illustration of the accused authorized one who should testify as a witness or will need to have some other intervention within the observe of proof. With all this, I see virtually unimaginable that the exterior lawyer who performs capabilities of Compliance officer can train the protection of the indicted authorized individual.

One other level of controversy is within the regulation of compliance physique within the Draft.

Within the present Penal Code it says that it have to be “… a physique of the authorized individual with autonomous powers of initiative and management…”. The Draft Invoice says that it have to be instantly and instantly below the authority of the very best administration physique of the corporate. Nicely, the legislator appears to confuse two totally different capabilities right here: “compliance physique” with “surveillance physique” (that of article 31 bis.2 Penal Code; with autonomous decision-making energy, which supervises the management mechanisms). Surveillance may very well be, for instance, the “Audit Committee” offered for public restricted firms listed in artwork. 529, quaterdecies of the Capital Corporations Legislation (RDL 2/7/2010)

Don’t forget that the decision regulatory compliance, and particularly the prison, from the doctrine established by the well-known Judgment of the Supreme Court docket of February 29, 2016 (the primary that spoke of “tradition of compliance”) It’s a process of the corporate, of its administrative physique, which delegates it to its “Compliance Workplace or to an” Ethics Committee “or” Prevention Committee “: to investigate and handle prison / prison danger (with an inside system: complaints channel, personal inquiries, sanctions … and so on.).

Nevertheless, the “delegating” physique (administrative physique) also can commit a criminal offense. Who controls it? The delegated officer? It can’t be each controlling and managed. It have to be executed by the “oversight / supervisory physique”.

In brief, it shouldn’t be compelled to at all times be the Compliance officer the consultant of the authorized individual in court docket (fundamental rule of the brand new article 81). On this we discover a clear distinction with respect to the present artwork. 119 Lecrim, which frees the accused authorized individual for the appointment of a consultant, in addition to a lawyer and lawyer. If the brand new regulation is profitable, the protection of authorized individuals topic to prison proceedings will probably be tougher.


[1]Curiously, a brand new terminology is enshrined within the LECrim. It’s spoken of: “indicted” individual – subjected to course of (in any of its phases); of “investigated” individual – subjected to investigation section; of the “accused” individual – towards whom prison motion is taken; and of an individual “convicted or punished” – one towards whom a conviction has been handed down. Nevertheless, the time period “accused” individual doesn’t seem within the authorized textual content. We converse of “imputation”, however not of “accused”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here