网络平台的数据合规管理义务及其刑事归责进路

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2023.05.278

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (4)

Download: PDF (798 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract In the era of big data, it is not a once-and-for-all thing to establish a data compliance plan on the network platform. Network platforms’ anomie in violation of data compliance management obligations will continue to appear, which will easily bring serious systemic risks, thus endangering the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and public safety, and even national security. At the moment when the enterprise compliance reform is being further promoted, it is necessary to deeply analyze the violation of data compliance management obligations of online platforms and its criminal responsibility from the theoretical level based on the legal forward-looking perspective.Combined with the current situation of relevant laws and regulations and data criminal compliance of network platform, it can be concluded that the data compliance management obligation of network platform has the efficiency of data crime prevention and punishment, and the specificity of obligation content is related to the effectiveness of data compliance plan, which determines that it has the qualification of criminal law obligation. At the same time, before the online platform violates the data compliance management obligations, it should be determined that the basis of the online platform’s criminal responsibility is the revised organizational responsibility theory with the enterprise’s criminal compliance plan as the core. Moreover, the basis of the online platform’s criminal responsibility for violating such obligations lies in the guilt-blaming function of the effective criminal compliance plan. However, in view of the violation of important data compliance management obligations by the network platform, the existing criminal law imputation path is mainly identified as the crime of omission as a joint crime or refusing to perform the obligation of information network security management. After careful analysis, it will be found that both of these schemes have disadvantages in practical application and it is difficult to reasonably regulate such behaviors.Therefore, it is necessary to make criminal legislation to determine the specific criminal responsibility of the network platform for violating the important obligation of compliance management of data as soon as possible. It is necessary to systematically examine the setting of specific charges according to the principle of constitutional proportionality. First, it is necessary to examine whether the behavior regulation meets the requirements of specific criminal policies and the eligibility conditions of criminal law legal interests with the principle of purposeful legitimacy. The second is to examine whether the illegal act violates the ethics of data responsibility and whether the subject of the act has the status of supervisor guarantor by the principle of necessity of means. The third is to examine whether behavior regulation can effectively avoid the damage of specific legal interests and optimize the benefits of data compliance based on the principle of balance between purpose and effect, and then confirm that legislation should add the crime of violating important data compliance management obligations in the form of intentional omission. Specifically, the crime should be set in the crime of disturbing public order in the first section of Chapter VI of the Specific Provisions of the Criminal Law as Article 286. Moreover, regarding the setting of the constitutive requirements of this crime, three points should be made clear. First, the content of this crime’s obligation includes both important data and core data. Second, the elements of this crime’s result should be considered with the seriousness of the circumstances, instead of setting ordering correction. Moreover, the serious circumstances should be comprehensively judged from the aspects of data security level, damage status and the effectiveness of data compliance plan according to the actual threat of inaction to relevant legal interests. Third, the subjective form of this crime can only be intentional and not negligent. This criminal law regulation scheme can not only comprehensively and effectively regulate the serious behaviors of data processors such as network platforms that violate important data compliance management obligations, but also provide clear applicable guidance for judicial personnel to investigate the legal responsibilities of relevant data processors for violating data compliance management obligations, thus contributing to the substantive, standardized and long-term development of enterprise data criminal compliance.

Key words： network platform obligation of data compliance supervision organizational responsibility theory effect of data compliance plan proportional principle crime of violating important data compliance supervision obligations

Received: 27 May 2023

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Liang Jian
	Yuan Yujie

Cite this article:

Liang Jian,Yuan Yujie. Data Compliance Supervision Obligation of Network Platform and Its Criminal Imputation Approach[J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2024, 54(3): 46-63.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2023.05.278 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2024/V54/I3/46

1 敬力嘉：《信息网络犯罪中集体法益保护范围的扩张与限度》，《政治与法律》2019年第1期，第57-68页。
2 陈磊：《刑事立法引入企业合规制度》，《法治日报》2022年6月8日，第04版。
3 高秦伟：《社会自我规制与行政法的任务》，《中国法学》2015年第5期，第73-98页。
4 陈瑞华：《合规监管人的角色定位——以有效刑事合规整改为视角的分析》，《比较法研究》2022年第3期，第28-43页。
5 单勇：《数字看门人与超大平台的犯罪治理》，《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》2022年第2期，第74-88页。
6 黎宏：《组织体刑事责任论及其应用》，《法学研究》2020年第2期，第71-88页。
7 美］乔治·阿克洛夫、瑞秋·克兰顿：《身份经济学：身份如何影响我们的工作、薪酬和幸福感》，颜超凡、汪潇潇译，北京：中信出版社，2013年。
8 Akerlof G. A. & Kranton R. E.， “Economics and identity，” Quarterly Journal of Economics， Vol. 15， No. 3 （2000）， pp. 715-753.
9 孙敏：《信息不对称下的有效员工激励约束机制：组织身份认同》，《中央财经大学学报》2015年第5期，第77-81页。
10 蔡惠芳：《我国法人犯罪立法之检视与理论建构》，《东吴法律学报》2017年4期，第44-45页。
11 储槐植：《刑事一体化论要》，北京：北京大学出版社，2007年。
12 叶良芳：《犯罪场理论视角下电信网络诈骗犯罪的治理对策》，《犯罪研究》2021年第6期，第2-10页。
13 周振杰：《企业合规的刑法立法问题研究》，《中国刑事法杂志》2021年第5期，第42-54页。
14 李鄂贤：《法人刑事责任的本质转变与法人犯罪立法的未来改革》，《法学杂志》2019年第5期，第57-65页。
15 周淳：《组织法视阈中的公司决议及其法律适用》，《中国法学》2019年第6期，第139-160页。
16 张梓弦：《不作为犯等价性要件的学理检视》，《中外法学》2022年第5期，第1320-1341页。
17 何渊：《数据法学》，北京：北京大学出版社，2020年。
18 敬力嘉：《数字货币语境下“过失参与洗钱”的行为不法类型》，《武汉大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2021年第4期，第172-184页。
19 Skeel D. A.， Icarus in the Boardroom： The Fundamental Flaws in Corporate America and Where They Came from， New York： Oxford University Press， 2006.
20 王蔚：《数字规则体系中宪法的“规范性”》，《华东政法大学学报》2022年第4期，第58-69页。
21 刘权：《目的正当性与比例原则的重构》，《中国法学》2014年第4期，第133-150页。
22 习近平：《在中央国家安全委员会第一次会议上的讲话》，见中共中央党史和文献研究院编：《习近平关于总体国家安全观论述摘编》，北京：中央文献出版社，2018年，第4-5页。
23 高铭暄、孙道萃：《总体国家安全观下的中国刑法之路》，载《东南大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2021年第2期，第59-67，147页。
24 Haugh T.， “The criminalization of compliance，” Notre Dame Law Review， Vol. 92， No. 3 （2017）， pp. 1215-1270.
25 德］克劳斯·罗克辛：《德国刑法学总论：犯罪原理基础构造》，王世洲译，北京：法律出版社，2005年。
26 王永茜：《论集体法益的刑法保护》，《环球法律评论》2013年第4期，第67-80页。
27 日］永井善之：《与信息处理相关的数字化平台的刑法规制》，2023年4月24日，https：//mp.weixin.qq.com/s/g8fRjgPgvafvLa5fdZmbgw，2023年5月20日。
28 陆宇峰：《论高度复杂社会的反思型法》，《华东政法大学学报》2021年第6期，第130-141页。
29 陈宏毅：《论过失不作为犯》，台北：元照出版公司，2014年。
30 冯圣晏：《建构实质的正犯概念》，见春风煦日论坛编辑小组编：《刑事法与宪法的对话——许前大法官玉秀教授六秩祝寿论文集》，台北：元照出版有限公司，2017年，第375-412页。
31 日］山口厚：《刑法总论》（第3版），付立庆译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2018年。
32 周漾沂：《从客观转向主观：对于刑法上结果归责理论的反省与重构》，《台大法学论丛》2014年第4期，第1469-1532页。
33 叶良芳、袁玉杰：《过失不作为犯结果回避可能性的体系化判断——以货拉拉案为分析样本》，《安徽大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第1期，第70-79页。
34 彭文华：《刑罚的分配正义与刑罚制度体系化》，《中外法学》2021年第5期，第1318-1339页。
35 美］斯蒂文·沙维尔：《法律经济分析的基础理论》，赵海怡、史册、宁静波译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2013年。
36 孙国祥：《刑事合规激励对象的理论反思》，《政法论坛》2022年第5期，第77-90页。
37 宋亚辉：《网络平台的动态规制理论》，《上海政法学院学报（法治论丛）》2023年第2期，第1-13页。
38 张明楷：《增设新罪的原则——对〈刑法修正案十一（草案）〉的修改意见》，《政法论丛》2020年第6期，第3-16页。
39 姜敏：《积极刑法观之面相、根据和实践限度的教义学分析——以〈刑法修正案（十一）〉为分析文本》，《法学评论》2022年第6期，第33-44页。
40 意］切萨雷·贝卡利亚：《论犯罪与刑罚》，黄风译，北京：商务印书馆，2017年。