Bibliographic citations
Alvarez, J., (2024). El Derecho Procesal Penal de las Personas jurídicas: ¿La regulación procesal ofrecida por la Ley N° 30424 garantiza suficientemente el derecho de defensa de las personas jurídicas como imputadas en el proceso penal? [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/29226
Alvarez, J., El Derecho Procesal Penal de las Personas jurídicas: ¿La regulación procesal ofrecida por la Ley N° 30424 garantiza suficientemente el derecho de defensa de las personas jurídicas como imputadas en el proceso penal? []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/29226
@misc{renati/1659409,
title = "El Derecho Procesal Penal de las Personas jurídicas: ¿La regulación procesal ofrecida por la Ley N° 30424 garantiza suficientemente el derecho de defensa de las personas jurídicas como imputadas en el proceso penal?",
author = "Alvarez Porras, Joan Manuel",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
This thesis seeks to show the different problems generated with the right of defense of the legal person and its instrumental rights since the entry into force of Law No. 30424, which will allow us to affirm that it does not offer a sufficient procedural regulation to guarantee the adequate exercise of the defense of the legal person in the criminal process in a regime of autonomous liability of the legal person. The law has established as procedural rules those that have been designed for the regime of accessory consequences against the legal person, where the liability of the legal person is accessory (the prior conviction of the natural person is required) and its procedural legal status is not that of an imputed procedural subject, but of a passive subject of the criminal proceeding. In this order of ideas, we will expose the problems generated by the law with the right of defense, the right to material self-defense and the right to non-self-incrimination of the legal person, from which it is noticed that a normative antinomy has arisen, legal gaps and procedural rules that violate the right of defense and instrumental rights of the legal person in the administrative liability regime. Finally, we will offer proposed solutions to the problems identified, consisting of interpretation criteria in light of the principles of criminal procedural law, the regulation of new procedural precepts inspired by comparative procedural experience and the modification of existing norms that do not guarantee the right of the legal person in criminal proceedings.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License