Corporate collaboration and sanction: Whistleblowing, internal investigations, and the dilemma of illicit evidence
Descripción del Articulo
The article analyzes corporate cooperation within the framework of corporate criminal liability, highlighting its role as an instrument of reactive prevention rather than as a retributive sanction. It studies the comparative evolution of different legal systems —United States, countries of the Germa...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Fecha de Publicación: | 2025 |
| Institución: | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Repositorio: | Revistas - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Lenguaje: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/32316 |
| Enlace del recurso: | http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechoysociedad/article/view/32316 |
| Nivel de acceso: | acceso abierto |
| Materia: | Responsabilidad penal corporativa Whistleblowing Investigaciones internas Prueba ilícita Colaboración Prevención reactiva Corporate criminal liability Internal investigations Illicit evidence Cooperation Reactive prevention |
| Sumario: | The article analyzes corporate cooperation within the framework of corporate criminal liability, highlighting its role as an instrument of reactive prevention rather than as a retributive sanction. It studies the comparative evolution of different legal systems —United States, countries of the Germanic tradition, Europe, and Ibero-America— regarding the incentives for companies to cooperate with the authorities through confession, reparation, improvement of compliance, and internal investigations. Special attention is given to the problems raised by cooperation when it relies on evidence obtained illegally, both by internal whistleblowers and in the context of corporate investigations. The paper examines the tension between encouraging cooperation and respecting fundamental rights, proposing clear limits: cooperation should not be the sole criterion for exemption from liability, and information obtained in violation of guarantees cannot justify procedural benefits. |
|---|
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).