Research On The Criminal Law Status Of Individual Proprietorship Enterprises

China's criminal law stipulates two types of criminal subjects.Due to the different academic interpretation methods,there has been controversy about the specific reference to the criminal unit subjects.The criminal law status of the sole proprietorship is one of them.The provisions of the criminal law and judicial interpretations do not explicitly exclude them out,but individual proprietorship enterprises do not meet the various characteristics of the unit subject summarized by traditional refereeing experience.The subjective positioning of a sole proprietorship is a problem that the judicial organ should resolve before the trial,which largely affects the effect of prosecution.This is related to whether the sole proprietorship can participate in the litigation and in what capacity should it participate in the litigation problem.If the sole proprietorship cannot have its own will and behavior,and cannot be the subject of the crime,it cannot be attributed to the role of the defendant in the criminal proceedings.The criminal consequences of the criminal action should be borne by the person in charge and the person directly responsible.Individual proprietorships also do not bear criminal blame.This article takes the various theories as the starting point,and conducts data analysis in conjunction with practical case refereeing,and puts forward criticisms on the various theories and practical practices.The first chapter traces the origin,development and related legal changes of individual proprietorship enterprises,thus proposing impacts and challenges on criminal law.The second chapter summarizes the three theories held by the academic community.The affirmation is based on the fact that the provisions are not explicitly excluded,the division of ownership forms violates the principle of equality,the concept of unit needs to be expanded,and the sole proprietorship law is independent of the individual,large-scale individual proprietorships are treated more objectively by unit.The reason for negation is that the corporate behavior is equivalent to the investor's behavior,the interests actually belong to the investor,inability to qualify,violation of the principle of adaptability of crime,punishment for unit crimes are lighter than for persons.The third theory proposes to different treatment according to the situation.Investors should deal with crimes committed by natural persons when they are operating on their own.Otherwise,they should be treated as units.The article also summarizes the differences between different theories.The third chapter elaborates the sample of empirical research,and combines the judgment documents as examples,sums up the two viewpoints and reasons of practical judgment,describes the differences of judgments caused by different courts and different regions,mentions the impact of the policy on the referee,and refined the practical dilemma found in the case.The forth chapter tells the author's standpoint to support the sole proprietorship of the enterprise as the unit subject.It should never be rigorously interpreted,the will of the owner is not equal to the will of the enterprise,the attribution of interests cannot deny the status of the unit subject,and it is not appropriate to narrow down the scope of unit subject due to unreasonable punishment,and it is not appropriate to expound one's own reasons from the perspective of legal personality.