| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 598.94 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Em resposta aos anseios da sociedade diante da recorrente impunidade dos agentes da criminalidade econômica, os ordenamentos jurídicos passaram a aceitar a responsabilização da pessoa coletiva juntamente com o seu representante. Diante disso, o presente trabalho propõe-se a analisar como decorre a responsabilidade penal individual dos administradores de empresas. Como será visto, os tribunais recorrem à imputação por omissão imprópria como estratégia de responsabilização individual. A omissão, portanto, pela violação de deveres fundamentais, é resultado de uma ausência de um comportamento exigido em razão da posição funcional ocupada pelo administrador. Qualificados como garantidores da proteção dos bens jurídicos ameaçados pela empresa, considerada como uma fonte de perigo, os administradores passaram a ser condenados simples e unicamente por ocuparem uma posição de hierarquia na estrutura organizacional. Este posicionamento não só coloca em xeque a concepção do Direito Penal como ultima ratio, como também viola princípios fundamentais que regem o Direito Penal. Neste sentido, buscou-se delimitar a responsabilização dos administradores a partir de uma análise concreta dos requisitos de punibilidade por omissão imprópria, haja vista a determinação da posição de garantidor ser só um primeiro passo para determinação ou não da punibilidade do omitente. Tendo em vista as frequentes condenações não só dos entes coletivos, mas também de seus representantes e a necessidade de reintegrar a confiança da sociedade abalada pelos inúmeros escândalos financeiros, as empresas passaram a perceber a necessidade de garantir uma melhor governança no exercício das suas atividades. O criminal compliance surge, portanto, como um mecanismo de prevenção de crimes, que visa evitar a responsabilidade penal dessas pessoas. Como será visto, a simples implementação de programas de Compliance não é capaz de imunizar a empresa contra escândalos ou crises, mas reduz os riscos, ao mesmo tempo que aprimora a fiscalização interna e aumenta o combate a fraudes. A existência de um efetivo programa de ética e compliance protege a pessoa coletiva do envolvimento com práticas delituosas, ao mesmo tempo que protege penal, civil e/ou administrativamente seus administradores.
In response to the aspirations of society in the face of the recurrent impunity of agents of whitecollar crimes, the legal systems began to accept the liability of companies alongside its representatives. Thus, this work seeks to analyze how the criminal liability of companies' directors takes place. As will be seen, the courts use improper omission as a strategy of individual accountability. The omission, therefore, for the violation of fundamental duties, is the result of an absence of an expected behavior due to the functional position occupied by the administrator. Qualified as guarantors of the protection of legal assets threatened by the company, considered a source of danger, the administrators started to be condemned simply and solely for occupying a position of hierarchy in the organizational structure. This arrangement not only calls into question the conception of Criminal Law as an ultima ratio, but also violates fundamental principles that govern Criminal Law. In this sense, we sought to delimit the liability of administrators based on a concrete analysis of the requirements for punishability for improper omission, given that the determination of the guarantor's position is only a first step in determining whether or not the offender is punishable. In view of the frequent condemnations not only of companies, but also of their representatives, combined with the need to restore the trust of society shaken by numerous financial scandals, companies began to realize the need to ensure better governance in the exercise of their activities. Criminal compliance emerges, therefore, as a crime prevention mechanism, which aims to avoid the criminal liability of these people. As will be seen, the simple implementation of Compliance programs is not capable of immunizing the company against scandals or crises, but it reduces risks, while improving internal inspection and increasing the fight against fraud. The existence of an effective ethics and compliance program protects the legal person from involvement in criminal practices, while protecting its administrators criminally, civilly and/or administratively.
In response to the aspirations of society in the face of the recurrent impunity of agents of whitecollar crimes, the legal systems began to accept the liability of companies alongside its representatives. Thus, this work seeks to analyze how the criminal liability of companies' directors takes place. As will be seen, the courts use improper omission as a strategy of individual accountability. The omission, therefore, for the violation of fundamental duties, is the result of an absence of an expected behavior due to the functional position occupied by the administrator. Qualified as guarantors of the protection of legal assets threatened by the company, considered a source of danger, the administrators started to be condemned simply and solely for occupying a position of hierarchy in the organizational structure. This arrangement not only calls into question the conception of Criminal Law as an ultima ratio, but also violates fundamental principles that govern Criminal Law. In this sense, we sought to delimit the liability of administrators based on a concrete analysis of the requirements for punishability for improper omission, given that the determination of the guarantor's position is only a first step in determining whether or not the offender is punishable. In view of the frequent condemnations not only of companies, but also of their representatives, combined with the need to restore the trust of society shaken by numerous financial scandals, companies began to realize the need to ensure better governance in the exercise of their activities. Criminal compliance emerges, therefore, as a crime prevention mechanism, which aims to avoid the criminal liability of these people. As will be seen, the simple implementation of Compliance programs is not capable of immunizing the company against scandals or crises, but it reduces risks, while improving internal inspection and increasing the fight against fraud. The existence of an effective ethics and compliance program protects the legal person from involvement in criminal practices, while protecting its administrators criminally, civilly and/or administratively.
Description
Keywords
Direito penal Direito penal econômico Criminalidade empresarial Responsabilidade penal Administradores de empresas Crimes omissivos impróprios Compliance Criminal compliance Criminal law Economic criminal law Whitecollar crimes Criminal liability Companies' directors Improper omission