La transaction pénale pour les entreprises. Genèse, circulation et usage d’un dispositif judiciaire
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
By the end of 2016, the loi relative à la transparence, à la lutte contre la corruption et à la modernisation de la vie économique, known as the « Sapin 2 law », introduced in French law a new criminal settlement procedure for business organizations and other legal persons: the convention judiciaire d’intérêt public (CJIP). Inspired by the deferred prosecution agreements practiced since the 1990s in the United States and since 2014 in the United Kingdom, the CJIP offers an alternative to prosecution against corporate entities suspected of offenses related in particular to corruption and tax fraud, by enabling the negotiated resolution of such cases: prosecutors and defendants can thus agree to suspend criminal prosecution in exchange for acknowledging incriminating facts, paying a fine and, in certain cases, implementing organizational reforms to prevent the risk of recidivism – all without a formal declaration of guilt. This new possibility of a negotiated outcome to criminal proceedings against companies represents a small « cultural revolution » in French justice, which was not welcomed without debate. Resulting from the collaboration of a sociologist and a jurist who share an interest in the uses and circumventions of the law by economic and financial actors, this report traces the genesis, circulation and uses of deferred prosecution agreements, from its American origins to its recent implementation in the French legal system. It presents the results of a research project based on qualitative interviews with some fifty legal professionals in the United States and France, on ethnographic observations of public hearings to validate CJIPs in France, and on a documentary analysis designed to reconstruct the debates mediatic, parliamentary, judicial and doctrinal – that have shaped the evolution of the corporate criminal settlement procedures over the last few decades. The report shows how, over the last thirty years and in several countries around the world, a new way of settling disputes with major corporations has gradually taken hold. The rapid rise of the negotiated settlement as the preferred mode of public action in the fight against economic and financial crime is inextricably linked to a new investment of corporate lawyers into the field of criminal law. Born of the unprecedented negotiating space between prosecutors and defense attorneys which characterized New York judicial microcosm of the late twentieth century, deferred prosecution agreements were later imported to France and the UK in the wake of corruption scandals involving some leading national companies targeted by the extraterritorial action of American prosecutors. Outside the U.S., adopting deferred prosecution agreements was conceived as a means of regaining control over the investigation, prosecution and punishment of national companies and protecting them from the long arm of American justice. In turn, corporate lawyers’ investment in criminal law is renewing the dynamics of the legal field, transforming not only the work of prosecutors and judges, but also the conditions under which corporate crime is made socially visible and criticized.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,035 | 0,008 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».