The current Chinese Company Law was adopted on the fifth session of the eighth National People's Congress on Dec. 29, 1993, first amended according to Decision on Amendment to Company Law of the People's Republic of China made by the thirteen session of the ninth National People's Congress on Dec. 25, 1999, second amended according to Decision on Amendment to Company Law of the People's Republic of China made by the eleventh session of the tenth National People's Congress on Aug. 28, 2004, third amended according to Decision on Amendment to Company Law of the People's Republic of China made by the twelfth session of the sixth National People's Congress on Dec. 28, 2013. The latest amendment becomes effective as from Mar. 1, 2014. A certain amount of books and papers on Company Law hold that the amended company law of Aug. 28, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Amended Company Law) clearly set forth the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil (i.e. the system of disregard of corporate personality) on basis of Article 20 and Article 64 of the Amended Company Law.[1]
Because the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is closely related to corporate crime punishment and control, this thesis specially studies the application of the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil to corporate crime, the influence on the basic scope of criminal denial of corporate crime and substantive and procedural issues of punishing and controlling corporate crime imposed by the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil.
The theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is proposed when the corporate personality is abused or other circumstances exist that the unit loses its independent personality. In such legal relation, the independent personality of a company does no longer exist, so there is a need to disregard the corporate personality of a company and then to make a shareholder behind the company assume civil responsibility. The same as this, the conviction of a unit crime in criminal law takes the recognition of such unit's independent personality as the premise. When a kind of circumstance exist that the unit loses its independent personality, the criminal law may deny the unit's qualification as a unit and pierce the veil of the company committing a crime to directly prosecute the crime manipulator behind the company.
The theory of Piercing Corporate Veil has the following three meanings:
1. Premise of the Theory of Piercing Corporate Veil
The premise of the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is the recognition of unit crime system other than denial of unit crime. From the perspective of improving unit crime theory, the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is a good supplement to the unit crime theory.
2. Content of the Theory of Piercing Corporate Veil
The content of the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is denying a unit's qualification as a subject in a certain criminal legal relation. It is proposed in a certain criminal case other than to deny a unit's qualification as a subject permanently.
3. Objective of the Theory of Piercing Corporate Veil
The objective of the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is to prosecute a natural person or other unit who utilizes or abuses a unit's independent personality to break the law or commit a crime and then realize fairness and justice of the law.
- 21/22 -
The theory of Piercing Corporate Veil is proposed against the feature of a unit crime and generally a selective application in a certain case of a unit crime. In judicial practice, the theory of Piercing Corporate Veil has been applied. For example, Interpretation of Supreme People's Court on Issues Related to How to Apply Laws Specifically When Hearing A Unit Crime Case on June 18, 1999 determined three circumstances where the unit's personality as a subject in a crime is denied: 1. An individual establishes a company, enterprise or public institution with the aim to conduct illegal activities; 2. After its establishment, the company, enterprise or public institution takes committing a crime as its main activity; 3. The individuals commit a crime secretly in the name of a unit and allot the illegal gains themselves. Taking relevant regulations of Shanghai as an example, Compilation of Q&A about Application of Criminal Law published by Shanghai People's Procuratorate and Shanghai Higher People's Court on July 8, 2003 makes more specific regulations on denying a subject's personality in a unit crime at the time of recognizing a unit in criminal law. They include the following circumstances: 1. Falsely Registered Unit. In the view of establishment mode and structure of a unit, if a social economic organization and the like is approved by and registered at relevant authority or organization (such as Administration for Industry and Commerce, superior competent authority), it may be recognized as a unit. However, although some limited liability company or joint-stock company limited gets approval and registration from authority for industry and commerce in form, if there is evidence to prove that such company is contributed, operated and managed by one person and the main interests belong to such person, it shall be deemed as an individual in terms of criminal law according to the proved facts. 2. An Unit Established with the Aim to Conduct Illegal Activity or Crime. From the perspective of actual activities conducted by an unit, if such unit mainly conduct illegal activities or crimes or the aim of establishing such unit is to conduct illegal activities or crimes, its unit personality shall be denied and its harmful conducts shall be deemed as individuals' illegal acts and crimes. 3. Individually-contracted Unit without Capital Contribution from the Unit Issuing Contracting. Its real situation is that the unit issuing contracting only provides business license and collects fixed contracting charges according to agreement. Under such circumstance, because the operation capital of the contracted enterprise is actually invested by the contractor itself, the enterprise is operated independently and the main benefits belong to the contractor. For a crime conducted by such individually-contracted unit, it may be convicted as an individual crime. 4. Unit namely belonging to a collective but actually belonging to an individual. Generally it contains two situations. The first one is that the unit should have registered as an individual proprietorship but it actually registers as a subordinate to state-owned enterprise, collectively-owned enterprise or other unit engaged in production and business operation; the second one is that the unit was originally a state-owned enterprise, collectively-owned enterprise or other unit, and actually bought and operated by an individual, but still uses the name of the former state-owned or collectively-owned unit and pays management fees to its superior competent unit. Because the aforesaid two types of unit are actually invested by an individual and interests mainly belong to an individual, the criminal acts conducted by it shall be deemed as an individual crime.
For the above-mentioned specific circumstances and other categories existing in judicial practice where the unit's personality as a subject is denied in a crime, they may be theoretically summarized as the following categories:
1. Company Established with the Aim to Conduct Illegal Activity or Crime
The establishment of a company must be legal. The legality mainly means that the purpose of establishing a unit must comply with requirements of state, public interests and public order and moral. This is a substantial element of legality of a company. If the purpose of establishing a company is to escape legal or contractual obligation or defraud creditors, even conduct illegal act or crime, the company's qualification as a subject shall be denied and the manipulator behind the company shall be held criminally responsible.
2. The Company Takes Illegal Act or Crime as Its Main Business Activity after Its Establishment
The company can only be recognized and protected by the law when it is used for legal purpose. It is forbidden to abuse the company for improper usage or illegal aim. If it is hard to get a conclusion
- 22/23 -
whether a company is mainly engaged in criminal activity because the company bot does legal business and commit crimes after its establishment, we should make a judgment after comprehensive consideration of numbers, frequency and lasting time of committing crimes of the company as well the situation of legal business by the company. If the company does legal business all the time after its establishment and occasionally commits crimes, it shall be deemed as a corporate crime; if the company used to do legal business after its establishment and ceased such business and mainly commits crimes for a certain period for many times, it shall be deemed as an individual crime.
3. Formalization of Unit Personality
The formalization of unit personality actually means that the will the company is totally the same as the will of the person in charge of the company and the company becomes alter ego of the person in charge or a tool of the agency of the person in charge, resulting in a situation that the company is equal to the person in charge and the person in charge is equal to the company. In the situations involving one-person company, parent company and its subsidiaries, the formalization of corporate personality is more serious. For example, the company is namely a limited liability company, but actually a one-person company. Under such situation, the individual is likely to utilize the independent personality of such limited company to conduct criminal acts in the name of the company but actually from the will of individual. If the company's qualification as a subject of a crime is not denied, it obviously loses fairness and justice of the law. Similarly, under the situation involving a parent company and its subsidiary, when the parent company manipulates its subsidiary to commit a crime, it is against the legal logic of corporate crime if the subsidiary is prosecuted. Under such circumstance, we must deny the corporate personality of the subsidiary and directly prosecute the manipulator-the parent company.
4. The Company Lacks Capacity to Receive Penalty
Because the criminal law applies only one type of penalty to a unit who commits a unit crime, i.e. fine, the assessment of a unit's capacity to receive penalty lies mainly in its capacity to undertake criminal responsibility in terms of its properties. In practice, most courts prove the unfairness of independence of a company and the necessity of piercing corporate veil on basis of the fact of insufficient capital. That is to say, if the company fraudulently obtain company registration by means of falsely reporting registered capital, providing false certificates and so on, when the court finds that the company's capital is less than the minimum statutory capital, the court will generally deny the company's qualification as a legal person. When a crime is constituted, the result whether it shall be recognized as a unit crime depends on the status of its shareholders. If the shareholder is a natural person, it shall be deemed as a natural person's crime. If the shareholder is a unit with personality as a legal person, a unit crime is constituted and the crime subject is the unit as such a shareholder.
5. Stealing or Borrowing the Name of A Company
Due to the difference of penalties between a unit crime and a natural person crime, company members always steal or borrow the name of the company to conduct illegal act or crime in the hope of escaping sanction on individual by criminal law, or in the same situation of constituting a crime, having a lesser penalty. Obviously, under such circumstance, there is no objection to deny the company's personality as a crime subject.
1. Standard of Criminal Denial of Corporate Crime by the Theory of Piercing Corporate Veil
(1) Positive Standard and Negative Standard The theory of Piercing Corporate Veil gives both positive standard and negative standard for criminal denial of corporate crime. Although Chinese criminal law does not give a definition to a unit crime, but the law clearly describes the unit crime subject, i.e. company, enterprise, public institution, government organ, group. The judicial interpretation gives a definition to a unit crime, i.e. if the crime is committed in the name of a unit and illegal gains belong to such unit, such crime is a unit crime.[2] This is a positive standard of constituting a unit crime. At the same time, it also stipulates
- 23/24 -
standard of denying a unit crime, i.e. (1) the individual establishing a company, enterprise or public institution with the aim to conduct illegal activity and crime commits a crime, or (2) if a company, enterprise or public institution takes committing crimes as its main activity after its establishment, such crime shall not be deemed as a unit crime. It is should be noticed that the standard of denying a unit crime is not a standard of decriminalization, but letting the defendant be likely sentenced to a more severe penalty. Although the above-mentioned regulations are relatively strict, the standard is not clear enough. What is main activity? Must it be more than 50% or 80%? In addition, what is a company established for conducting illegal activity and crime?
(2) Conflicts of Standard and the Choice There are two standards and we have a problem on which one has priority when there are conflicts between such two standard. The author holds that the negative standard shall prevail because the negative standard is a special regulation which is a disclosure of actual individual crime and denial of a unit crime in form. Someone holds that it shall be interpreted according to the principle of benefiting the defendant and then the positive standard shall prevail over the negative standard. The author considers that this opinion is not proper. Because the principle of interpreting a law in a way benefiting the defendant is only applicable when there are different understandings and interpretations on the same law, now the judicial interpretation sets forth positive standard and negative standard, the principle of benefiting the defendant shall not be applied.
2. Procedure of Criminal Denial of Corporate Crime by the Theory of Piercing Corporate Veil
The key concerning the procedure of criminal denial of corporate crime by the theory of piercing corporate veil lies whether the denying power shall be exercised uniformly by people's court and whether there is a need to set forth a special procedure to impose some limitation when people's court deny a unit's qualification as a crime subject. As for procedure of denial, Chinese criminal procedure law and judicial interpretation have not clear regulation. This question is proposed from the system of disregard of corporate personality. Someone holds that the denying power of piercing corporate veil must be exercised by people's court according to a certain procedure and not be exercised by an administrative organ or other judicial organs. From the perspective of current situation, in criminal proceeding, the denying power regarding a unit's qualification as a crime subject is finally exercised by people's court, namely the criminal court. The public security organ and procuratorial organ may put forward their opinions in the phase of investigation and prosecution, which will impose a certain influence and sometimes important influence on the final judgment made by the court. Because denying a unit's qualification as a crime subject imposes significant influence on the substantive interest of the defendant, someone puts forward whether it is possible to set forth a special procedure to impose some limitations when the procuratorial organ charges with a unit crime and the court wants to deny it and recognize the crime as a natural person crime. The author holds that there is no need to set forth a special procedure to impose some limitations when people's court exercises the final denying power but the court shall exercise such power prudently.
3. Legal Consequences of Criminal Denial of Corporate Crime by the Theory of Piercing Corporate Veil
(1) The punishment for individual crime is more severe than that for a unit crime Because the current Chinese criminal legal system imposes more severe punishment on individual crime than that on a unit crime, from the standpoint of the state, piercing the unit's veil on the individual's face and regarding it as a natural person crime as its original may be more beneficial to punishing and controlling crimes, maintaining normal social and economic order. However, from the perspective of the defendant, he will try everything to seize the veil of a company or a unit to lessen his crime and liability. Because it's very different between crimes with this veil and without this veil, sometimes it even relates to the death. The case of Zhu Jinlin falsely issuing a value-added invoice which was retried by Yunnan Province Higher People's Court and Honghe Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People's Court according to Supreme People's Court's decision after the death penalty review procedure is a good example. Four persons including Zhu Jinlin, within three years, under the premise of no actual business, issued value-added invoices amounting to more than RMB 300000000 Yuan. There were 162 victims covering more than 10 provinces and cities. After two instances of trial by the court, Zhu was
- 24/25 -
sentenced to death and the rest three compliances were sentenced to death penalty with reprieve, life imprisonment and 15 years imprisonment respectively. Supreme People's Court reversed the judgments of the first instance and the second instance on the ground that the fact was not clear and returned the case to Honghe Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People's Court for retrial. On June 6, 2006, Honghe Autonomous Prefecture Intermediate People's Court retried this case publicly. The retrial was focused on whether this crime was an individual crime or a unit crime. The procuratorial organ held that the two major defendants Zhu Jinlin and Wang Minfei committed individual crime because they utilized names of Jinlin Company and Shiji Company to illegal collect procedure fees and kept and used such fees. In addition, before issuing those invoices of large amount, the company did not hold shareholders' meeting and had not any minutes of meeting on this issue. That is to say, these were individual conducts by those two persons. The defenders of two defendants had the opposite opinion. They thought that all value-added invoices were issued in the name of the company other than individuals and all collected procedure fees were paid into the account of the company other than directly occupied by some individuals. In reality, this was a kind of duty-related conduct reflecting the company's will and the subject who directly got benefits was the company not the individuals. Therefore, this case should be convicted as a unit crime. Under such situation, the defendant should assume responsibility which a chief officer should assume and the individual should not be directly convicted as committing a crime of falsely issuing value-added invoice.[3]
(2) Difference of Penalty Between A Unit Crime and An Individual Crime under the Same Charge In Chinese criminal substantive law, there are following differences between a unit crime and an individual crime even under the same charge. Firstly, the starting pointing for incriminating a unit crime is high, generally 2 or 5 times of that amount of an individual crime, that is to say, the threshold of a unit crime is higher than an individual crime. Secondly, for a crime that an individual and a unit can independently commit, the statutory penalty for the direct responsible person of a unit crime is lesser than that of an individual crime. For example, for the crime of smuggling ordinary goods and articles set forth in Article 153 of Criminal Law, the maximum statutory penalty for an individual crime is death penalty, but 15 years imprisonment for a unit crime. Thirdly, a unit crime is constituted under the premise that the specific provisions of the criminal law set forth a clear regulation, that is to say, only when the law clearly sets forth it as a unit crime, such unit shall assume criminal responsibility. However, an individual crime is constituted without a special specific regulation in specific provisions of the criminal law. Fourthly, the defendant has different moods towards his responsibility in an individual crime and a unit crime. Especially, when it constitutes a crime of contract fraud in the course of making loan for a unit, some defendants cannot accept their status as swindlers but can understand their criminal responsibilities undertaken by them as directly responsible persons in a unit crime.[4]
1. Difference between Civil Disregard and Criminal Denial
There are several differences between civil disregard of the theory of piercing corporate veil of the amended Company Law and criminal denial of a unit's qualification as a subject in corporate crime.
(1) Different Level
The two are different in the level of whether it is complete denial. The system of piercing corporate veil does not reject the existence of the company which itself still exists, but a creditor may bypass the company's legal person qualification and directly ask a shareholder to assume joint and several liability for the company's debts. That is to say, it is not a complete denial of the company's existence, but a disregard of its legal personality in a certain case at the same of recognizing the existence of such legal person and deems the company and its shareholders as one.[5] However, the denial of a unit's qualification as a crime subject is a total denial. The criminal responsibility for a certain crime will not be assumed by a unit but an individual (natural person). For further consideration, because the criminal responsibility and civil responsibility (such as criminal and supplementary compensation) shall be assumed by the same subject, when the criminal responsibility is assumed by a natural person, the supplementary civil compensation shall be paid by such natural person and will not be paid by relevant unit (even such unit exists).
- 25/26 -
(2) Difference in Choice
The two have difference in choice of denial. Piercing Corporate Veil means that the shareholder assumes joint and several liabilities for the company, that is to say, the company and such shareholder are subjects under debts, but the choice lies in the hand of a creditor. Such creditor may choose to ask the company to pay debts. But the denial of a unit's qualification as a crime subject is either-or. It is either a unit crime receiving single-penalty or dual-penalty or an individual crime. It cannot be both a natural person crime and a unit crime.
(3) Different Initiators
The two have different initiators: individual or unit or procuratorial organ. The initiator of Piercing Corporate Veil is the creditor and the initiator of denying a unit's qualification as a crime subject is actually the procuratorial organ which charges an individual crime but a unit crime when it prosecutes. The defendant and its defender makes defense on ground of a unit crime to make this issue more clear.
(4) Different Foundations and Reasons
The two have differences in the level of abusing the company's qualification. Piercing Corporate Veil is due to abusing the company's personality to escape debts and seriously infringe upon a creditor's interests. The denial of a unit's qualification as a crime subject can only arise from two situations: one is that the company, enterprise or public institution established by an individual with the aim to conduct illegal or criminal activity commits a crime; the other is that if the company, enterprise or public institution takes committing a crime as its main activity after its establishment, the crime will not be deemed as a unit crime.
2. Differences in Application of Compulsory Measures between Civil Disregard and Criminal Denial
The differences in application of compulsory measures in procedural law between civil disregard and criminal denial are obvious. The biggest difference is that the personal freedom of the person directly responsible for a unit crime may not be limited, but the personal freedom of a person responsible for an individual crime will be limited. If a unit's qualification as a crime subject is denied and such crime is deemed as an individual crime, the compulsory measures adopted will show different characteristics which is closely related to interests of the suspect or defendant. The compulsory measures in current Chinese criminal procedure law are mainly targeted at personal freedom of a natural person, so they are hard to be applied to a unit. In order to adapt to the need of hearing a unit crime case, in June 1998, Chapter 11 of Interpretation on Several Issues of Implementing Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China gave judicial interpretation on this. On basis of this, the compulsory measures imposed to a criminal unit have the following differences between civil disregard and criminal denial:
(1) Certain Object of Application
Compulsory measures may only be imposed upon the suspected unit or the charged unit. For any other units, including those related to the case, even they helped the criminal unit breach proceeding or hinder proceeding, if they do not constitute a crime, we cannot impose compulsory measures upon them but impose suitable treatment or penalty according to relevant laws and regulations.
(2) Generality of Measures
That is to say, all measures may be imposed to any criminal unit. Compulsory measures targeting at a natural person have different imposing conditions. For example, conditions for imposing residence under surveillance or bail are different from those for detention or arrest. The penalty for a unit crime is only fine and imprisonment is not imposed in a unit crime. Therefore, no matter what crime a unit constitutes, felony or misdemeanor, if it is necessary for handling such case, all compulsory measures may be imposed upon such criminal unit.
(3) Multiplicity of Measures
The compulsory measures imposed upon a criminal unit are multiple. It may be limitation on freedom of such unit, for example, limiting business place change, prohibiting registration of new branch, supervision on business activity. It may also be compulsory measures on properties of such unit including sealing, seizing or freezing properties. However, at present, the compulsory measure imposed upon a natural person is only limiting personal freedom.
(4) Compatibility of Measures
Two or more compulsory measures for a criminal unit may be imposed at the same time. For example, when a unit is charged with a crime, the enforcement organ may impose several compulsory measures upon it at the same time, i.e. sealing its properties, freezing its accounts, limiting its moving, supervising main links of its operation and so on. But the case is very different in an individual
- 26/27 -
crime. Due to the feature of a natural person, compulsory measures imposed upon him are actually mutually exclusive. For example, if a suspect is arrested, during the arresting period, he cannot be bailed, vice versa.[6]
The theory of Piercing Corporate Crime has dual influences, substantive and procedural, on corporate crime punishment and control.
1. Some Explanatory Rules Need Further Amendment
Some explanatory rules need further amendment. For example, Q&A on Application of Criminal Laws (Apr. 2004) jointly formulated by Criminal Trial Court of Shanghai Higher People's Court and Prosecution Section of Shanghai Peoples' Procura-torate set forth relevant issues on a subject of a unit crime as follows: for a company approved by and registered with authority for industry and commerce, if there is evidence that can prove that the company is actually invested by one person and run by one person, the company's main benefits belong to a certain person, then the company is deeded as an individual. This article need amendment or deletion because one-person limited liability set forth in the Amended Company Law has the above-mentioned features. If the shareholder of such one-person limited liability can prove that the company's properties are independent of his own properties, if the crime committed by the company complies with requirements set forth in Article 30 of the criminal law, it is still a unit crime other than an individual crime.
2. Other Substantive Elements for Denial of A Unit Crime Are Not Changed.
Except (1), other substantive elements for denial of a unit crime are not changed.
1. Review and Treatment of Whether A Unit's Qualification as A Subject in Corporate Crime Is Denied.
If a creditor has brought a suit for disregarding a corporate personality to the court and directly taken a shareholder as a defendant to ask for defaulted money, after the court accepts this case, such company is charged with a unit crime, how should it be handled? The author holds that the court shall first examine whether such unit's qualification as a crime subject will be denied and then handle the case respectively according to examination result. If the court applies the principle of criminal case first and civil case later without exception and treats it as a unit crime, there is a suspicion that the court indulges the defendant.
2. Legal Consequences of Whether A Unit's Qualification as A Subject in Corporate Crime Is Denied
In the course of criminal proceedings of a unit crime case, if the relevant company's personality is denied, but because the company still exits, two situations may arise. One is that such company's qualification as a crime subject is also denied (the individual establishes a company with the aim to commit a crime or the company takes committing a crime as its main activity). At this moment, such case shall be treated as an individual crime and cannot be treated as a unit crime any more. The object of a criminal and supplementary civil compensation lawsuit shall be changed from a company to an individual. The other is that the company's qualification as a crime subject cannot be denied, then it shall be treated as a unit crime.
3. Influence of Whether A Unit's Qualification as A Subject in Corporate Crime Is Denied as to Other Possible Crimes
Article 20 and Article 60 of Amended Company Law do not completely deny a company's personality, that is to say, even the case is handled according to Article 20 and Article 64, the company still exits. Therefore, the ownership of the company's properties and the treatment of a serial of contracts signed by the company in the earlier
- 27/28 -
operation can be decided according to laws and bylaws, resulting in no mess. To say the least, various crimes related to the company's properties and business such as fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement and the crime of endangering company or enterprise management order will not suffer big change. The current practices are choice made on basis of lessons drew in the past. Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of Official Reply of Supreme Court on Civil Responsibilities Undertaking after the Cancellation or Winding up of Other Enterprise Run by An Enterprise (Year 1994 No. 105 Document) sets forth that if an enterprise run by another enterprise does not actually invest its own capital or the invested capital from itself is less that the amount stipulated in Paragraph 7 of Article 14 of Detailed Rules of Implementing Regulations on Enterprise As A Legal Person Registration Management or other relevant laws and such enterprise does not meet other requirement of enterprise as a legal person, even it gets a business license for an enterprise as a legal person, the people's court may deny its legal personality and its civil responsibility shall be undertaken by the enterprise that run such enterprise. This practice of completely denying legal personality arose many messes in determination of civil infraction and crime. The regulation in Amended Company Law is different from that in such official reply. The author holds that it is more suitable when the Amended Company Law does not completely deny a company's legal personality. ■
NOTES
[1] Article 20 of Amended Company set forth that shareholders shall comply with laws, administrative regulations and articles of association, exercise their rights legitimately, and not abuse the independent status of a company and the shareholder's limited liability to infringe upon interests of creditors of the company. If a shareholder abuses the independent status of a company and the shareholder's limited liability to avoid debts, resulting in serious infringement upon interests of creditors of the company, such shareholder shall take joint and several liability for debts of the company. In addition, because Chinese Company Law sets forth one-person limited liability company, in which shareholders' properties and the company's properties are hard to divided, therefore, Article 60 of the Amended Company Law sets forth that if a shareholder cannot prove the company's properties are independent of his own properties, such shareholder shall take joint and several liability for the company's debts. Please additionally see Du Wenjun, Application of Disregard of Corporate Personality to Criminal Responsibility in An Unit Crime and Its Development, Economic Criminology, Shanghai Renmin Press, Issue (6), P26.In addition, the two articles are adjusted to be Article 20 and Article 63 according to the amendment to Company Law on Dec. 28, 2013.
[2] Please see Interpretation of Supreme People's Court on Issues Related to How to Apply Laws Specifically When Hearing A Unit Crime Case (F.S. 1999 No. 14)
[3] Please See Wen Xing, Death Penalty Review, Saving Life from the Gun by Supreme People's Court, Shanghai Law Journal, June 9, 2006.
[4] Please See Lin Yinmao, Conflicts between Theory and Practice of Unit Crime, Political Science and Law, 2006(2).
[5] Please See Zhu Ciyun: Research into Legal Theory of Disregard of Personality in Company Law, Law Press, 1998 Edition, P94.
[6] Please See Meng Xianli, Discussion on Several Issues over Compulsory Measures Imposed in a Unit Crime, Shanghai Trial Practice, 2005(12).
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is Associate Prof. Director of Office of Institute of Law of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Associate Professor, PhD in Law, Post-doctor.
[2] The actor is associate professor of Shanghai Normal University College of law and politics and Philosophy, China.
Visszaugrás
