現代法人透過組織分工、決策與管理參與經濟活動，其犯罪風險往往並非個別成員之偶發違法，而與法人之組織政策、監督機制及企業文化密切相關。然而，我國刑法典尚未就法人刑事責任設有一般性規定，相關處罰散見於附屬刑法，致法人受罰之歸責基礎與構成要件仍欠明確。 本文以法人故意犯罪之構成要件建構為核心，整理我國相關理論、現行規範及實務案例，並考察美國代位責任模式。該模式以受僱人或代理人於職權範圍內、為法人利益所為之犯罪歸責於法人，具有歸責要件明確及犯罪預防之優點，但亦可能造成自然人責任之轉嫁與法人責任之過度擴張。 本文主張，我國應吸收美國法上職權範圍與法人利益之要素，並以組織體責任模式加以實質化。客觀上，應以自然人成員於法人業務活動中實施犯罪為連結，並要求該行為可評價為法人之組織行為，且與法人利益或營運目的具有實質關聯；主觀上，則須由法人之政策、決策、管理方針或企業文化，認定其對違法風險具有認識、追求、容認或放任之組織故意。如此，法人刑事責任方能建立於其自身之組織不法，並兼顧企業犯罪防制、罪責原則與自己責任原則。;Modern corporations operate through complex systems of decision-making， management， and division of labor. Corporate crime may therefore reflect not only individual misconduct but also corporate policies， supervision， and culture. However， Taiwan’s Criminal Code contains no general rules on corporate criminal liability， while relevant provisions remain scattered across subsidiary criminal statutes. This thesis examines the constituent elements of intentional corporate crime by reviewing Taiwanese law and practice and comparing them with the U.S. vicarious liability model. Under the U.S. model， a corporation may be liable for crimes committed by employees or agents within the scope of their authority and for the corporation’s benefit. Although this approach promotes crime prevention， it may also overextend corporate liability. This thesis argues that Taiwan should adopt the elements of scope of authority and corporate benefit while supplementing them with the organizational liability model. Objectively， the offense must be attributable to the corporation as an organizational act and substantially related to its business or interests. Subjectively， organizational intent should be inferred from corporate policies， decision-making， management， or culture. This approach grounds corporate criminal liability in the corporation’s own organizational wrongdoing and better accords with the principles of culpability and personal responsibility.
