The Interpretation of Article 479 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Article 479 of the Criminal Procedure Act, enacted at the time of the Act's inception, remains unchanged and stipulates nearly the same content as Article 492 of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act. However, this provision faces criticism regarding the principles of individual culpability and the personal nature of criminal liability, as it allows for the execution of criminal penalties against a surviving corporation if a merger occurs after a judgment has become final. Rather than focusing on its uncon- stitutionality, this paper seeks to present an interpretation and legislative theory regarding Article 479. While Article 328(1)(ii) provides grounds for the dismissal of prosecution when a defendant corporation ceases to exist, it does not explicitly mention “corporate mergers” as Article 479 does. Consequently, under current law, whether a corporation is dissolved or merged, courts inevitably interpret the situation as a disappearance of the defendant, leading to a dismissal. Although one could argue that criminal liability should be succeeded by the surviving corporation in a merger—given the general principle of universal succession or the legislative intent of Article 479—such an interpretation risks an impermissible expansion of criminal punishment beyond the literal text of the statute. Thus, a discrepancy exists: under Article 479, fines can be enforced against a surviving corporation after a merger, whereas under Article 328, a merger during trial leads to a dismissal of prosecution. To resolve this, it is not reasonable to assume that criminal responsibility is inherited indefinitely solely because a merger occurred. Instead, it is necessary to examine the specific details of the merger and the continuity between the entities. As a matter of legislative theory, a distinction should be made between mergers occurring before and after the finality of a judgment. The Criminal Procedure Act should be amended to allow a surviving corporation to assume the status of the defendant in ongoing trials. Crucial criteria for this succession should include whether the successor entity conducts substantially the same business, maintains employment and facilities, shares the same executives and shareholders, and functions as the functional successor of the predecessor corporation.