The criminal responsibility of economic entrepreneurs because of the faults of subordinates
Journal of college of Law for Legal and Political Sciences,
2016, Volume 5, Issue 18 part 2, Pages 147-186
The original is that do not ask a man, but for his mistake Profile This rule is enshrined in the bulk of the criminal legislation of modern After struggling thought the criminal lived until he arrived, but in the field of economic crimes is different, as necessary, and of ensuring the implementation of economic laws, and serious economic crimes, and the widening scope of criminalization where, to extend the scope of criminal responsibility to people who did not commit the crime physically, but committed by another person with which Balaol relationship assumes that the person who did not commit a crime, a top official from the one that committed the crime, and this is what clearly appears to the managers of economic enterprises in the event of mistakes by their followers, These Almseron are charged under the law the duty of oversight and supervision of subordinates to prevent violations by their followers, if the infringement occurred, it means that there is a breach of the duty of oversight and supervision by the managers, so we see that there are many of the penal provisions economic acknowledged the responsibility of the owners of economic projects of the mistakes affiliates But in the scope of the legislation, the Iraqi legislature did not care about this kind of responsibility, but in a narrow range. We have raised this responsibility debate doctrinal and judicial significant because in the face of responsibility are incompatible with the principle of personal responsibility and punishment so were several of these views to determine the legal basis which justified in the development of the legal regime that governs it, divided the opinions and ideas into two first includes theories that depend on the nature of economic activity The second group includes theories of personal depends on the moral side of the trajectory, and we felt that the prevailing view is that to join the second group and who lives criminal liability on the basis of personal fault and of breach of walking the duty of oversight and supervision, and that crime's is just a presumption on the availability of this error, and the Order of criminal responsibility for the trajectory does not mean not to punish the perpetrator of physical crime, if possible margin of error to him, but to pass this kind of responsibility, it should require a provision that otherwise could not assign criminal responsibility of the trajectory, if only to do a mere negligence in the contro and supervision.
- Article View: 48
- PDF Download: 37