[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, if an employee commits a crime, in principle, the employee himself/herself shall bear criminal responsibility, and the enterprise shall not be directly held accountable for the crime; however, if the criminal act reflects the will of the unit, is committed for the unit's interests, and has been decided or condoned by the unit, it may constitute a crime of the unit. According to Articles 30 and 31 of the Criminal Law, a double punishment system shall be implemented, and both the enterprise and the directly responsible persons shall be investigated and held accountable. Even if it does not constitute a crime of the unit, the enterprise may still be subject to civil compensation or administrative penalties due to its lack of management. The key to judgment lies in "whether it is an act of the unit" and "whether it has fulfilled its obligation of compliance management". It is recommended that enterprises keep records of authorizations and approvals, and establish compliance systems. For more details, please refer to the following link:Criminal defense and criminal case filing services.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

"Employees commit crimes and the company takes the blame" is a concern for many business owners. Typical scenarios include: sales staff bribing customers to meet performance targets; financial staff falsifying invoices to benefit the company; technical staff illegally obtaining citizens' personal information for the company to use; and individual employees acting privately but using the company's name externally. Companies often wonder: if they have already paid salaries and signed labor contracts, do they have to pay for the employees' crimes? The answer is not absolute, and the key lies in whether the behavior is "institutionalized". For cases involving employment relationships, it can be combined with other factors to determine the responsibility of the company.Labor arbitration and work-related injury compensation servicesUnderstand the boundaries of employment.

II. Key points of contention

The focus of the dispute centers on three points. Firstly, the nature of the act: is it an employee's personal overstepping of authority, or an official act reflecting the unit's will and serving the unit's interests? Secondly, the unit's fault: whether the enterprise has established and implemented a system sufficient to prevent such crimes, or whether it has knowingly tolerated them. Thirdly, the form of liability: whether it constitutes a double punishment for the unit's crime in criminal law, whether it should bear compensation for negligence in selection and management in civil law, and whether it will be punished in administrative law. When handling similar cases in the Beijing area, judicial authorities tend to be cautious in determining unit crimes, and at the same time, they also attach importance to the sentencing significance of corporate compliance rectification, leaving room for defense for compliant enterprises. For cases involving internal contracts, reference can be made to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Company Law.Business and contract dispute resolution services for enterprises.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

Based on Hengluo Lawyer's practical experience in handling corporate criminal cases, whether a company should bear legal responsibility often hinges on two key pieces of evidence: first, whether the authorization and approval chain is clear, which can prove that the involved actions exceed the company's authorized scope; second, whether the compliance system is truly implemented rather than just being a piece of paper on the wall. In practice, some companies have been found to have "knowingly or should have known" about the crimes simply because of a company stamp, a blank contract, or a tacit chat record, thus becoming involved in corporate crimes; while other companies have successfully separated the actions from the employees' personal responsibility by providing complete approval records and regular audits. The value of professional lawyers lies in clarifying the boundaries between the company's will and individual actions at the earliest possible stage, and fixing the "fulfillment of management obligations" into admissible evidence. When dealing with intellectual property infringement cases, it may be necessary to combineIntellectual property protection and corporate legal services.

IV. Practical Suggestions and Legal Basis

The core basis is Article 30 and Article 31 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China (the relevant provisions came into effect in 2021) (regarding corporate crime and the double punishment system), as well as the provisions of the Civil Code on the employer's liability for harm and the employer's fault in management; administratively, it can refer to the regulatory and punishment rules of various industries. Practical suggestions: explicitly prohibit sexual behavior and its consequences in labor contracts and rules and regulations; set up hierarchical authorizations and double review for high-risk links such as funds, invoices, and data; retain records of approval, training, and audits; promptly fix evidence of "unauthorized, compliant, and stopped" after the incident, distinguish between the responsibilities of the unit and individuals, cooperate with the investigation according to the law, and introduce criminal lawyers. When it comes to enforcement, it can be combined with the following:Creditor-debtor relations and enforcement case services.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

To prevent "employees' crimes implicating the enterprise", the key lies in compliance rather than post-event remedies. It is recommended to incorporate prohibited behaviors into the system, embed high-risk actions into workflows, and document training and audits to ensure that "the unit was unaware of the situation and has fulfilled its obligations" can be verified. After an incident occurs, do not simply use the defense that "this is an employee's personal behavior" to shrug it off, but rather use a chain of evidence to prove it. Also, do not destroy materials or pressure employees to shift blame, as this will backfire on the enterprise. Building a strong defense in advance is far more effective than dealing with emergencies after they occur. For system building, you can refer to the following resources for reference:Special services and other case-related services.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If an employee commits a crime, will the company definitely be held accountable?

Not necessarily. In principle, employees are personally responsible for their own crimes, and enterprises are not subject to "collective punishment". Only when the behavior reflects the will of the unit, serves the interests of the unit, and is approved or condoned by the unit, may it constitute a crime of the unit, and the enterprise and the responsible person will be punished together. In addition, even if it does not constitute a crime, the enterprise may still bear civil compensation or administrative penalties due to management negligence. Whether the responsibility lies with the enterprise depends on whether the behavior is "institutionalized" and whether the enterprise has fulfilled its management obligations, rather than on the employment relationship itself. It is recommended to use authorization and compliance records to prove the boundaries, rather than relying on verbal defenses.

Q2: If I want to prove that an employee's behavior is a personal crime and has nothing to do with the company, what evidence should I prepare?

The core evidence includes: a list of job responsibilities and authorities, which proves that the involved actions exceeded his/her authority; a hierarchical authorization, approval, and contract management system; the employee's operation records, chats, and emails that were not approved by the unit; compliance training and warning materials that the enterprise has conducted; and records showing that the unit promptly stopped, reported, or cooperated with the handling of the matter after discovery. The materials should form a continuous chain of evidence showing "unauthorized - compliant - stopped". The more evidence that can prove that the enterprise was unaware of the situation and has fulfilled its management obligations, the more conducive it will be to distinguishing the actions as those of individuals outside the unit. For more details, please refer to the following link:Criminal defense and criminal case filing services.

Q3: How much does it typically cost to hire a lawyer to deal with employee-related criminal cases in a company?

The attorney's fees are negotiated and agreed upon in a written contract between the law firm and the client. For corporate criminal defense, the fees are usually charged in stages or as a lump sum, with the amount depending on the number of individuals involved in the case, the complexity of the charges, and the workload. There is no nationwide standard pricing. Compared with reacting passively after the fact, it is more "cost-effective" to establish a daily compliance system and intervene at the early stages of an incident, which can significantly reduce the probability of the involved unit being identified as a criminal and the losses. It is recommended to require the issuance of a fee breakdown, clarify the services provided at each stage and third-party expenses (such as audits and guarantees), and set a reasonable budget based on the enterprise's risk exposure.

Q4: How long does it typically take from the employee committing the crime to the clarification of the company's responsibilities?

If it is determined that the act was committed by an individual and the unit is not listed as a suspect, it usually takes several weeks to cooperate with the investigation and internal verification. If the unit is put on file, the detention period during the investigation stage is generally no more than two months, which can be extended. The review and prosecution stage takes about one and a half months, and the first-instance ordinary procedure takes two to three months. The clarification of responsibilities often precedes the final judgment — by separating the unit from the individual through evidence during the investigation and prosecution stages, the unit may not be prosecuted. The overall cycle depends on the completeness of the evidence and the professionalism of the response. The more evidence is preserved in advance and the faster the responsibilities are clarified, the shorter the overall cycle will be.

Q5: If an employee is suspected of being involved in a crime, what should the company do first?

It is recommended to proceed in five steps: First, suspend the employee's relevant permissions and seal the contracts and accounts handled by him/her to prevent the loss from expanding; Second, internally verify whether the actions were authorized by the unit and whether they were in the unit's interest, and fix the evidence of "non-approval"; Third, do not alter or pressure the employee, and cooperate with the investigating authorities in accordance with the law; Fourth, sort out the compliance system and training records to prove that the management obligations have been fulfilled; Fifth, hire professional criminal lawyers as soon as possible to clarify the boundaries of responsibilities between the unit and individuals, and strive for leniency by conducting compliance rectification when necessary. Throughout the process, the principles of "loss prevention, evidence preservation, and legal compliance" should be adhered to.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Criminal defense legal services·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.