企业反腐败持续升温是当前全球反腐的特点之一，而全球跨国反腐败合规潮流的兴起则是全球反腐败的新趋势。我国民营企业自身的腐败犯罪对整体国民经济的危害性以及其结构特征，决定了从反腐败和经济发展两个角度来讲，民营企业腐败问题都应该引起充分的重视。民营企业腐败犯罪的治理重在预防，如何在借鉴域外国家预防企业腐败犯罪经验的基础上，并结合我国民营企业腐败犯罪的本土特征，探讨国家、民营企业和其他社会主体合作预防民营企业腐败犯罪，具有重大的理论和现实意义。 我国民营企业腐败犯罪的整体规模和趋势呈逐年递增态势；从其触犯的高频罪名及其结构来看，民营企业腐败犯罪中自体性腐败与结构性腐败并存，公私领域腐败犯罪相互交错，其案发的中心环节集中于日常经营环节；我国对于民营企业腐败犯罪的遏制手段主要为查处和刑罚惩处。我国民营企业腐败犯罪也是腐败犯罪的高发风险区域，其社会危害性应该引起足够的重视，尤其需要借鉴域外治理企业腐败犯罪逐渐重视预防的理念。 第一，民营企业腐败犯罪与治理。在民营企业自身发展的现实需要和国家“一带一路”建设的大背景下，倡导实施反腐败合规计划的疏导型合作治理有助于实现国家和企业的共赢，也是践行党和国家推进全面反腐，促进民营企业健康持续发展的重要体现。实然层面上，我国民营企业腐败犯罪治理中存在着政策导向上对民营企业腐败犯罪治理重视程度不够、治理模式上忽视国家-企业间的反腐败合作、治理策略上重事后打击、轻事前预防等诸多问题。 第二，治理语境下域外企业腐败犯罪合作预防模式的特点及路径。合作预防模式强调国家-社会的二元治理，国家通过拟定同企业腐败犯罪作斗争的基本方针和制定相关法律，从整体上规划、组织和指导全社会预防企业腐败犯罪；同时，企业是社会主体中的重要力量，作为与其他社会主体一样是与犯罪作斗争的重要的实践主体，自然也是预防性对策的参与和制定主体之一，其产生的标志是将企业合规计划作为认定企业刑事责任的核心要素。其合作关系的具体表现则是国家从整体上进行调控和指导，并以立法尤其是刑事立法的形式赋予企业结合自身具体情况，制定以预防、发现和处理企业腐败犯罪行为为目的的系统性的反腐败合规制度、机制和措施的义务。企业以此降低被调查或被制裁的风险，并能在企业腐败犯罪发生后达到以减轻或免除责任甚至排除其作为犯罪的形式来积极影响制裁的目的；国家则以此降低对企业腐败犯罪的制裁成本。合作预防模式强调的是国家和社会合作治理语境下的国家与企业的共制和合作，充分发挥了企业在治理尤其是预防企业腐败犯罪中的作用，并且推进了企业腐败犯罪刑事治理的科学化，促进了国家之间治理和预防企业腐败犯罪的相互借鉴与融合，所以越来越多的国家采纳了合作预防模式。合作预防模式的具体建构路径又不完全一致，可以分为独立构罪模式、起诉和量刑激励模式、混合模式。 第三，提倡在我国适用民营企业腐败犯罪合作预防模式。对于合作预防模式可以从善治理论、成本效益理论、社会控制理论、社会契约理论解释其具有正当化理论依据。另外，在实践中国家和企业均已经对合作预防分别展开了立法推动、实践探讨，这为合作预防模式提供了实践依据。合作预防模式的推行在理论与实践中有刑事合规为抓手促进民营企业腐败犯罪合作预防模式落地。刑事合规是指将“企业是否有效预防犯罪”与企业刑事责任联系起来，促使企业主动实施合规计划并能起到预防、发现和处理犯罪行为作用的措施体系与运行机制。提倡民营企业腐败犯罪合作预防模式对于如何进行本土构建也是一个挑战，因为民营企业腐败风险包括现实风险和潜在风险，如何进行预防更主要的是关注如何前瞻性地避免潜在的风险现实化。从宏观上来看，需要确立国家在观念、制度、立法规范上的引领和指导，加强企业在制度、机制、文化体系上的合规建设，促进其他第三方社会主体在监督、互律等方面的合作。 第四，合作预防模式中的国家预防。合作预防模式中国家观念层面的引导最为重要，这是从宏观上进行架构。相应的诸如弘扬企业家精神的企业家荣誉制度、大赦民营企业家原罪制度、检企合作制度等一系列的预防性合作制度都是在观念层面引导下才能构建的。合作预防模式中的国家立法规范预防离不开刑事法预防，却又不局限于刑事法预防。要想达到追究企业刑事责任的立法期待，收到预防民营企业腐败犯罪之实效，就必须在刑事立法上确立明显不同于追究自然人犯罪刑事责任的原则，并在司法中彻底摒弃建立在以追究企业中自然人刑事责任为前提的潜意识。刑事合规对刑法和刑事诉讼法的重大影响在于：开辟了针对企业犯罪的内部诱因——企业本身管理上的不完善与企业组织结构缺陷等进行法律制裁的新领域。作为刑事合规问题意识的一个基本前提是：确认企业和企业领导人诚信合规经营是一种法律上的义务，而不仅仅是一个道德要求。所以，具体到刑事实体法预防的完善上，需要改进单位犯罪的立法模式、创设具有预防企业腐败犯罪功能的新罪名、严密相关罪名体系和惩治功能、完善单位（企业）犯罪的量刑激励机制；具体到刑事程序法预防的完善上，主要是建立企业缓起诉制度。总之，在评价和追究企业履行预防腐败犯罪责任时，将企业是否采取了制度化的预防对策以及实际效果，作为企业及其领导人是否履行过监督义务的处罚点与落脚点。除了刑事法预防，还有其他部门法预防。其中行政法预防和民事法预防主要是作为刑事法的前置法预防，需要建立起不同的制裁方式和制度，如第三方举报奖励制度、受害第三方损害赔偿制度等等，其目的也是为了激发出企业实施反腐败合规计划的外在动力和压力。 第五，合作预防模式中的民营企业自我预防。民营企业作为腐败犯罪合作预防模式中的重要一方主体，需要在国家整体规划、指导和组织预防民营企业腐败犯罪之下，加强企业的合规管理以达到自我预防的目的，即实现规制下的自制。民营企业自我预防的最佳路径是构建反腐败合规计划，就是通过立法将“民营企业是否有效预防企业和员工腐败行为”与刑事责任联系起来，作为判定企业刑事责任的要素，促使企业主动履行预防腐败所构建的制度和机制的社会责任。企业自我预防的具体构建其实就是如何构建企业的反腐败合规计划，并且能够达到被国家层面主体认定为有效的标准。具体主要从企业领导层对预防腐败的重视与推动、制定明确的反腐败合规政策与行为守则、建立企业反腐败合规执行机制、完善企业反腐败合规监督机制、注重企业反腐败合规准则的普及等五个要素或标准，构建相应的制度、机制和文化体系。 第六，合作预防模式中的第三方社会主体预防。其他第三方社会主体预防主要包括行业协会商会、媒体、学术机构对民营企业腐败犯罪的预防。行业协会商业预防主要是联合其他主体制定反腐败行业标准等促进企业自律，代表企业与国家主体对话促进双方互律，整体上是为了促进实现软法之治。媒体预防则主要表现为拓展案件线索发现途径以促进对企业腐败的“零容忍”，披露腐败信息加强对企业的外部监督，整体上是促进对民营企业腐败问题的发现和揭露。学术研究机构预防则是推进反腐理论和实践的发展，一方面促进合作预防腐败犯罪理论与实践的发展，另一方面也能充实中立的第三方专业评估机构的力量。 第七，民营企业加入反腐败阵营，既是为了履行民营企业的社会责任，更是为了自身的长远发展。民营企业的发展需要以合规为保障，以创新为驱动，以法治为后盾。

The continuing rise of corporate anti-corruption is one of the characteristics of global anti-corruption, and the rise of global cross-border compliance anti-corruption is a new trend in global anti-corruption. The harmfulness of China's private enterprises' own corruption crimes to the overall national economy and its structural characteristics has determined that from the perspectives of anti-corruption and economic development, the corruption of private enterprises should be given full attention. The governance of corruption crimes in private enterprises focuses on prevention. On the basis of learning from the experience of preventing foreign enterprise corruption in extraterritorial countries, and on the local characteristics of corruption crimes in private enterprises in China, it is of great theoretical and practical significance to discuss the cooperation between state, private enterprises and other social entities to prevent corruption in private enterprises. The overall scale and trend of corruption crimes of private enterprises in China are increasing year by year. From the high-frequency crimes and their structures, private corruption and structural corruption coexist in corruption crimes of private enterprises, and corruption crimes in public and private fields are intertwined. The central link of the crime is concentrated in the daily operation; the means of containment of corruption crimes in private enterprises in China are mainly the investigation and punishment. The corruption crimes of private enterprises in China are also the high risk areas of corruption crimes. Their social harm should be paid enough attention to. In particular, it is necessary to learn from the concept of prevention of corporate corruption crimes. First of all, corruption and governance of private enterprises. Under the background of the reality of the development of private enterprises and the construction of the “Belt and Road” initiative, the advocacy of the implementation of the anti-corruption compliance plan will help achieve a win-win situation between the state and the enterprise, and is also an important manifestation to implement the comprehensive anti-corruption for the party and the state and promote the healthy and sustainable development of private enterprises. On the practical level, there are many problems in the governance of corruption crimes in private enterprises in China, including a lack of emphasis on the governance of corruption crimes, the ignorance of the anti-corruption cooperation between the state and enterprises in the governance model, and the focus of governance strategy on the aftermath of the crime instead of its prevention. The second, the characteristics and path of cooperation prevention mode for corruption crimes of enterprises outside the territory in the context of governance. The cooperative prevention model emphasizes the dual governance of the state and the society. The state plans, organizes and guides the whole society to prevent corporate corruption crimes by formulating basic policies for combating corporate corruption crimes. At the same time, enterprises are an important force in social subjects. As an important practice subject in the fight against crimes like other social subjects, enterprises are naturally one of the participants in the participation and formulation of preventive countermeasures. The sign is that the corporate compliance plan is regarded as the core element to determine the criminal responsibility of the enterprise. The specific performance of the cooperative relationship is that the state regulates and guides the whole, and endows enterprises with the obligation, in the form of legislation especially criminal legislation, to make anti-corruption compliance systems, mechanisms and measures for preventing, discovering and dealing with corporate corruption crimes. Enterprises can reduce the risk of being investigated or sanctioned, and can achieve the purpose of mitigating or exempting liability or even excluding it as a form of crime to effectively influence sanctions after the occurrence of corporate corruption offences, while the state can reduce the cost in sanctioning the enterprise corruption crimes. The cooperative prevention model emphasizes the co-culture and cooperation between the state and the enterprise in the context of state and social cooperation governance, giving full play to the role of enterprises in governance, especially in preventing corporate corruption, and promoting the science of criminal governance of corporate corruption crimes. It promotes the mutual learning and integration of corporate governance and prevention of corporate corruption crimes, so more and more countries have adopted a cooperative prevention model. The specific construction paths of cooperative prevention mode are not completely identical, and can be divided into independent criminal mode, prosecution and sentencing incentive mode and mixed mode. The third, it advocates the cooperative prevention model of corruption crimes in private enterprises in China. The cooperative prevention model can be explained by the theory of good governance, cost-benefit theory, social control theory, and social contract theory. In addition, in practice, both the state and enterprises have initiated legislative promotion and practical discussion on cooperative prevention, which provides a practical basis for the cooperative prevention model. The implementation of the cooperative prevention model has criminal compliance in theory and practice to promote the cooperative prevention model of corruption crimes in private enterprises. Criminal compliance refers to linking “enterprise effective crime prevention” with corporate criminal responsibility and promoting enterprises to take the initiative to implement a compliance program and act as a system of measures and operational mechanisms to prevent, detect, and address the role of criminal behavior. Promoting the cooperative mode to prevent private enterprise corruption crimes is also a challenge for how to localize, because the corruption risk for private enterprises includes realistic risk and potential risk, and the concern should be how to prospectively avoid the corruption risk realization. From a macro perspective, it is necessary to establish the guidance of the state in terms of concepts, systems, and legislative norms, strengthen the compliance construction of enterprises in systems, mechanisms, and cultural systems, and promote the cooperation of the supervision and mutual discipline of other third-party social entities. The fourth, national prevention in the cooperative prevention model. The guidance of the national concept level in the cooperative prevention model is the most important, which is structured from a macro perspective. A series of preventive cooperation systems, such as the entrepreneurial honor system for promoting entrepreneurship, the original crime system for private entrepreneurs, and the cooperation system for enterprise inspection, can all be constructed under the guidance of the concept level. The prevention and control of legislation in the cooperative prevention model is inseparable from criminal law prevention, but it is not limited to criminal law prevention. In order to achieve the legislative expectation of investigating criminal responsibility of enterprises, and to receive the effectiveness of preventing corruption crimes committed by private enterprises, it is necessary to establish a principle different from the criminal responsibility of investigating natural persons in criminal legislation, and completely abandon the subconsciousness on the basis of investigating the responsibility of natural persons in the judicial system. The major impact of criminal compliance on criminal law and criminal procedure law is to open up a new field of internal incentives for corporate crimes, such as imperfections in enterprises and legal defects in corporate group structures. A basic premise of awareness of criminal compliance issues is that it is a legal obligation to recognize the integrity and compliance of business and business leaders, not just a moral requirement. Therefore, specific to the improvement of criminal substantive law prevention, it is necessary to improve the legislative mode of unit crime, create new crimes with the function of preventing corporate corruption, identify related crime system and punishment function, and improve the sentencing incentive mechanism of corporate crime. The improvement of procedural law prevention is mainly to establish a corporate prosecution system. In short, when evaluating and prosecuting enterprises to fulfill their responsibility for preventing corruption, it is necessary to consider whether the company has adopted institutionalized preventive measures and its actual effects as the punishment points and footholds for enterprises and their leaders to fulfill their supervisory obligations. In addition to criminal law prevention, there are other departmental laws to prevent. Among them, the prevention of administrative law and the prevention of civil law mainly serve as the pre-law prevention of criminal law, and it is necessary to establish different sanctions methods and systems, such as third-party reporting reward system, third-party victim damage compensation system, etc., and its purpose is also to inspire the external drive and pressure of companies to implement anti-corruption compliance programs. The fifth, self-prevention of private enterprises in the cooperative prevention mode. As an important party in the cooperative prevention model of corruption crimes, private enterprises need to strengthen the compliance management of enterprises to achieve the purpose of self-prevention under the overall planning, guidance and organization of corruption prevention of private enterprises, that is, self-control under the regulation. The best way for self-prevention of private enterprises is to build an anti-corruption compliance plan, which is to link the “private enterprises to effectively prevent corporate and employee corruption” with criminal responsibility through legislation, as a factor in determining corporate criminal responsibility, and encourage enterprises to actively fulfill social responsibility for systems and mechanisms built to prevent corruption. The specific construction of enterprise self-prevention is actually how to build a corporate anti-corruption compliance plan, mainly from the corporate leadership to pay attention to and promote corruption prevention, formulate clear anti-corruption compliance policies and codes of conduct, and establish corporate anti-corruption compliance enforcement. The system, the improvement of the enterprise anti-corruption compliance supervision mechanism, and the five elements or standards that focus on the popularization of corporate anti-corruption compliance standards are used to construct corresponding systems, mechanisms and systems. The sixth, the prevention of third-party social subjects in the cooperative prevention model. The prevention of other third-party social subjects mainly includes the prevention of corruption crimes committed by private enterprises in chambers of commerce, media and academic institutions. Trade associations' commercial prevention is mainly to promote the self-discipline of enterprises in conjunction with other entities to formulate anti-corruption industry standards, and to promote dialogue between the two sides on behalf of enterprises and the state. The overall aim is to promote the realization of soft law. Media prevention is mainly manifested in expanding the path of discovery of clues to promote “zero tolerance” for corporate corruption, disclosure of corrupt information to strengthen external supervision of enterprises, and overall promotion of the discovery and disclosure of corruption in private enterprises. The prevention of academic research institutions is to promote the development of anti-corruption theory and practice. On the one hand, it promotes the development of the theory and practice of cooperation in preventing corruption, and on the other hand, it can enrich the power of neutral third-party professional evaluation agencies. The seventh, that private enterprises join the anti-corruption camp is useful not only for its social responsibility but also for their long-term development. The development of private enterprises needs to be guaranteed by compliance, driven by innovation and backed by the rule of law.