Хуан Я. Гарантия конфиденциальности и право адвоката не разглашать информацию клиента // Достижения науки и образования №7 (8), 2016 - С.{ см. журнал}. Тип лицензии на данную статью – CC BY 3.0. Это значит, что Вы можете свободно цитировать данную статью на любом носителе и в любом формате при указании авторства.

Хуан Ягэ / Huang Yage – кандидат, магистр юридических наук, Институт доказательственного права и судебной экспертизы, Китайский университет политики и права, г. Пекин, Китайская народная республика

Abstract: anyone knows the information of a case has the obligation to testify in the court, and considering the importance of the communication right secretly between the client and the lawyer, china establishes limited lawyer’s confidentiality obligation in the legislation, which are the compromises production of public interests and personal interests. Lawyer’s confidentiality obligation and attorney-client privilege are two related systems, and the lawyer’s confidentiality obligation belongs to the client, while the privilege is the right to confront the third party. The nature of the lawyer’s confidentiality obligation and the attorney-client privilege are different at all. The attorney-client privilege is the further extension of confidentiality obligation, and the lawyer not only has the right to communication with the clients secretly, but also has the right to refuse to testify in the court. In Chinese legislation, attorney-client privilege has not been established completely yet, and there is still a long way to go on protecting the right of the lawyer.

Аннотация: все, кто владеет информацией, относящейся к делу, обязаны давать показания в суде, но принимая во внимание важность тайного общения между клиентом и адвокатом, Китайское законодательство устанавливает адвокату ограниченные обязательства конфиденциальности в законодательстве, что является компромиссом общественных и личных интересов. Гарантия конфиденциальности и право адвоката не разглашать информацию клиента – это две похожие системы в законодательстве. Гарантия конфиденциальности адвоката относится больше к правам клиента, в то время как неразглашение информации клиента - это право противостоять третьей стороне. С другой стороны, сам характер обязательств по обеспечению конфиденциальности и привилегии адвокат - клиент очень отличаются. Привилегия адвокат - клиент является продолжением обязательств по соблюдению конфиденциальности т.к. адвокат не только имеет право на общение с клиентами тайно, но также имеет право отказаться от дачи показаний в суде. В китайском законодательстве, привилегия адвокат - клиент еще не была установлена полностью, ей еще предстоит пройти долгий путь по защите прав адвоката.

 Keywords: attorney-client privilege, confidentiality obligation, obligation of truthfulness.

Ключевые слова: привилегия адвокат-клиент, обязательств по соблюдению конфиденциальности, обязанность правдивости.

 References

1. Roscoe Pound. The Lawyer from Antiquity to Modern Times. West Publishing Co. (Minnesota), 1953. Pp. 20.
2. Yue Lu. Moral Dilemmas and Solving Way of the Lawyer Confidentiality Obligation. PHD Candidate Dissertation in Shan Xi University, 2013. Pp.12.
3. The Buried Bodies Case was a New York court case in which lawyers Frank Armani and Francis Belge who in the mid-1970s, citing attorney-client privilege, refused to disclose the location of the bodies of two people murdered by their client, Robert Garrow. Armani and Belge did not disclose the identity of the bodies but it was assumed they were two girls missing from the area at that time. The case is discussed frequently in legal ethics classes, and has been dramatized in Sworn to Silence, a 1987 film, and "Bodies", a 2003 episode of the television series Law & Order. Armani and Belge had represented Garrow in his trial for murdering an eighteen-year-old boy; during the trial, Garrow confidentially told the lawyers where he had hidden the bodies of the two girls. In discussions with the attorney prosecuting Garrow, the lawyers proposed a plea bargain where they would reveal the location of the bodies in return for Garrow being sentenced to life in a mental hospital, but the prosecutor refused. While testifying in his own defense during the case, Garrow admitted to four murders, including those of the girls, and was convicted. Belge was indicted for refusing to disclose the locations of the bodies, and Armani's bar association began a disbarment proceeding against him. Both were ultimately exonerated. Four years after his conviction, Garrow escaped from prison, leaving behind a hit list including Armani's name. After Armani disclosed to the police information from his conversations with Garrow that suggested where he was hiding, Garrow was shot and killed by the police.
4. ‘People Republic of China - The Lawyers' Professional Ethics and Practice Disciplines’, Article 8.
5. ‘People Republic of China - The Law on lawyers ’, Article 38.
6. ‘People Republic of China – The Criminal Procedural Law’, Article 46.
7. Si Li. On discussion on Lawyer Confidentiality Obligation about Theoretical Issue. Journal of R &. D Management, 2015. Pp. 110-114.
8. Fang Tang. Theory of Defense Lawyer Confidentiality Privilege System and Perfecting. Journal of R &. D Management, 2008. Pp. 79-83.
9. The article 26 of Code of Practice of Beijing Lawyers stipulates: Partnership lawyers, lawyers are obliged to provide guidance and supervision in business and professional ethics to practice lawyers, paralegals, legal intern, administrative staff and other auxiliary personnel, particularly in supporting the client’s information in secret. Lawyer not only should take action to stop or remedial measures but also should take responsibility when assigned auxiliary personnel occurs error in work.
10. Denning Alfred Thompson. Translated by Keqiang LI &.Baikui Yang. The Due Process of Law. Beijing: China Legal System Press, 1999. Pp. 35.
11. Baosheng Zhang. Law of Evidence. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press., 2014. Pp.260-261.
12. Danhong Wu. A Study on Privilege. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2008.Pp. 118.
13. Xuewei Qian. Build a Balance Point of Real Duty and Confidentiality Obligation of Lawyers. E Zhou University Academic Journal, 2006. Pp. 28-29.
14. Baosheng Zhang. The Basic Values and Theoretical System of Evidence Rule. Chinese Journal of Law, 2008.
15. ‘People Republic of China – criminal law’ (2012 version), Article 60.
16. Zheng Li.23-25.
17. Guoying Shu. Introduction to Jurisprudence. Beijing: Beijing University Press, 2012. Pp. 50.
18. Currently, an open statistics show that after establishing this crime for eight years, there has more than 200 practicing lawyers be prosecuted by the crime of lawyer’s perjury. The Chinese Lawyers Association had a statistical analysis about 23 lawyer’s perjury cases; the results showed that the rate of wrong case is more than 50%. Some scholars made statistics, from 1997, the number of the lawyers who were prosecuted by article 306 of The Criminal Law of PRC, and finally more than 80% ware acquitted by the court.
19. Xiandan Huo. Legal Profession and the Cultivation of Legal Talents. Chinese Journey of Law, 2003. Pp. 80-89.
20. Si Li. Whether Lawyers Confidentiality is a Right or Obligation the Reconstruction of our Country's Lawyer’s Confidentiality Obligation. Chinese Lawyers Journal, 2003. Pp. 31-34.

Диянкова А.В. Некоторые проблемы применения на практике принудительных мер воспитательного воздействия к нecoвepшeннoлeтним // Достижения науки и образования №5 (6), 2016 - С.{ см. журнал}. Тип лицензии на данную статью – CC BY 3.0. Это значит, что Вы можете свободно цитировать данную статью на любом носителе и в любом формате при указании авторства. 

Диянкова Анастасия Васильевна / Diyankova Anastasiya Vasilevna  –  студент магистратуры, Алтайская академия экономики и права, г. Барнаул

Аннотация: в статье рассматриваются проблемы применения на практике принудительных мер воспитательного воздействия к несовершеннолетним и пути их решения.

Ключевые слова: несовершеннолетние, динамика преступности, принудительные меры воспитательного воздействия.

Литература

1. Генеральная прокуратура Российской Федерации. Портал правовой статистики: Режим доступа: http://crimestat.ru/offenses_rate (дата обращения 12.03.15).
2. Архив Ленинского районного суда г. Барнаула Алтайского Края. Дела № № 1-610/14; 1-672/14.