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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor: Goena Vives, Beatriz
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
Descripción
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).