Examinando por Materia "Complicidad"

Mostrando 1 - 3 de 3
  • No hay miniatura disponible
    Publicación
    Diferencias entre el injusto penal y el ilícito disciplinario : a propósito de la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana del 8 de julio de 2020
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2023) Blandón Espinosa, Juan Camilo
    In the context of the discussion and evolution of this legal institution, "it was only from the 90s onwards that complicity through neutral actions became a central issue in the field of criminal law" (Greco, 2017). Indeed, as Sánchez (2013) stated, "it seems that the widespread adoption of the doctrine of neutral intervention behaviors was not mainly due to the academic examples of bakers, taxi drivers or waiters, but rather to the analysis of the Dresdner case. Bank, with all its subjective complexities" (p. 2). In a seminar held at the Pompeu Fabra University of Barcelona, under the direction of Professor Sánchez, the importance of establishing distinctions in the treatment of neutral behaviors that contribute or have an impact on subsequent criminal behavior was pointed out. In the words of Guzmán (2017), "it was highlighted that, however, the distinction criterion necessary for this remained an unresolved issue" (p. 1). During this discussion, the Munich professor argued that "what has been tried to combat, above all, is the idea that intervention in a criminal act through a neutral action is automatically unpunished" (Claus, 2000, pp. 202-203). Consequently, the following work explores various doctrinal perspectives that explain the situations in which neutral conduct, such as the professional provision of a service, facilitates the commission of the crime of unfair administration. In these cases, the subject who contributes to the execution of said crime, without possessing the legal aptitude required in the type, can be considered an accomplic
  • No hay miniatura disponible
    Publicación
    La ignorancia deliberada en derecho penal : su incompatibilidad C.P. colombiano
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2021) González Cifuentes, Sara; Cadavid Quintero, Alfonso
    The improper omission is a criminal figure through which criminal liability is imputed to the guarantor who omits a legal duty to avoid a harmful result and, therefore, the crime is imputed to him as if he himself were actively executing the punishable conduct. On the other hand, authorship and participation are titles of imputation of the crime that allow to graduate the intervention, according to the contribution that the subject provides in the production of the crime. This article analyzes whether the special duty of guarantee is always the basis of authorship or whether it is possible to distinguish between authorship and participation by omission. Specifically, the degree of participation attributable to the guarantor, member of the military forces, which does not prevent the materialization of a harmful result executed by third parties, will be specified.
  • No hay miniatura disponible
    Publicación
    La necesidad del “cooperador necesario” como forma de participación en la legislación penal colombiana
    (Universidad EAFIT, 2025-11-07) Hasler Valencia, Lucero Concepción, Lucero Concepción; Echavarría Ramírez, Ricardo
    The traditional criteria for attributing criminal responsibility, while useful in most cases, reveal a notable insufficiency when addressing borderline factual situations. Specifically, there appears to be a gray area between co-perpetration and complicity, where the participant’s conduct, although going beyond the merely accessory contribution typical of an accomplice, does not reach the level of control and mastery over the act required to be considered a principal. This situation becomes more pronounced when the participant’s contribution assumes a special character which, although not decisive for the consummation of the offense, exceeds the bounds of mere collaboration. However, in the absence of an explicit regulation in Colombian law for this type of participation, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter S.C.J.) has developed the notion of improper co-perpetration, extending its scope to those individuals who, without directly intervening in the execution phase, make a functionally significant contribution to the commission of the criminal act.