insights.freddoa.com

Blog

  • STJ Validates Contract Payments Using Cryptocurrencies

    The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ — Brazil’s highest appellate court for non-constitutional federal law) issued a significant ruling for the Brazilian business environment, validating the use of cryptocurrencies to settle contractual obligations between private parties. In ruling on Special Appeal (REsp) 2,235,558, the court established that mere price fluctuation of a digital asset does not justify invalidating a legal transaction.

    The Case and the Courts’ Position

    The legal dispute originated in a lawsuit seeking contract termination and the nullity of contractual clauses. The case involved the transfer of the cryptocurrency Token I9COIN as partial payment for the acquisition of real estate and a vehicle. The seller claimed that the cryptoasset had been fraudulently overvalued and was linked to a financial pyramid scheme, requesting that the obligation be converted into legal tender currency.

    On appeal, the Santa Catarina State Court of Justice (TJSC) dismissed the fraud claim. The state appellate court highlighted the seller’s lack of caution in failing to assess the transaction’s risks beforehand. The TJSC ordered the rescission of the real estate contract solely because only partial payment occurred, but upheld the validity of the vehicle contract and the agreed use of the cryptoasset as payment.

    Upon reviewing the appeal, the reporting justice at the STJ, Justice Nancy Andrighi, upheld the Santa Catarina court’s understanding, dismissing the seller’s claim and reinforcing the validity of transactions involving digital assets.

    Grounding in the Legal Framework for Cryptoassets

    The STJ decision is grounded in current legislation, specifically Federal Law No. 14,478/2022, known as Brazil’s Legal Framework for Cryptoassets. The reporting justice highlighted that the law recognizes the regularity of virtual assets, defining them as digital representations of value that can be used for payments or investments.

    It is important to emphasize the distinction drawn by the court between cryptocurrencies and legal tender. According to the ruling:

    • Lack of legal tender status: Unlike the Brazilian Real (BRL), cryptocurrencies do not have forced circulation status in Brazil. Therefore, their acceptance in contracts is strictly optional.
    • Nature of the obligation: When parties agree to use cryptocurrencies, the obligation does not constitute a debt in money under Article 315 of the Brazilian Civil Code, but rather the transfer of a digital asset.

    The justice emphasized that, because no legal prohibition exists, transactions involving cryptocurrencies are valid under the Brazilian legal system, which not only recognizes them but also provides legal protection.

    Volatility and Risk Assumption

    A core element of the ruling is the allocation of risk in contracts involving digital assets. Using cryptocurrencies constitutes a high-risk investment for both parties — both buyer and seller.

    The high volatility of these assets, which can lead to significant variations in purchasing power, must be weighed by the parties when executing the agreement. The STJ determined that both parties bear the risk of appreciation or depreciation of the asset’s value when converted into Brazilian Reais. Consequently, market fluctuation does not serve as a legal basis to invalidate the agreed transfer.

    Practical Considerations for Businesses

    The STJ Third Panel ruling brings greater legal certainty to private transactions utilizing new financial technologies. For founders, investors, and executives structuring commercial operations, this precedent reinforces that using cryptoassets as payment is legitimate, provided there is mutual agreement between the parties. However, judicial validation comes with a reminder of the need for prior due diligence and a clear understanding that price fluctuation risks are fully assumed by the contracting parties.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STJ确认使用加密货币履行合同付款的有效性

    Superior Tribunal de Justiça（STJ，巴西高等司法法院）第三审判庭作出了一项对巴西商业环境具有重要意义的判决，确认了在私人之间使用加密货币履行合同义务的有效性。在第2.235.558号特别上诉案（REsp）的审理中，法院认定数字资产价值的单纯波动并不能成为使法律行为无效的正当理由。

    案件背景与法院立场

    该法律争议源于一起解除合同及确认条款无效的诉讼。案涉交易涉及转让加密货币Token I9COIN，作为购买一处不动产和一辆机动车的部分对价。卖方声称该加密资产存在欺诈性高估并涉及传销骗局，请求将该项给付义务变更为以法定货币支付。

    在二审中，Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina（TJSC，圣卡塔琳娜州法院）驳回了关于欺诈的主张。州法院指出卖方在事先未对交易风险进行评估，存在疏忽。TJSC仅因认定存在部分未付款项而裁定解除不动产合同，但维持了车辆买卖合同的有效性以及将加密资产作为约定付款方式的合法性。

    在审理上诉时，STJ主审法官Nancy Andrighi维持了州法院的判决，驳回了卖方的诉求，并重申了数字资产交易的有效性。

    《加密资产法律框架》的法律依据

    STJ的判决基于现行法律，特别是被称为《加密资产法律框架》的第14.478/2022号联邦法律。主审法官强调，该法保障了虚拟资产的合规性，并将其定义为可用于支付或投资的数字化价值表现形式。

    值得注意的是，法院明确区分了加密货币与法定货币。根据判决：

    • 无强制通用效力：与巴西雷亚尔不同，加密货币在巴西不具有法偿性（强制通用力）。因此，在合同中接受加密货币完全属于自愿性质。
    • 义务的法律性质：当当事人约定使用加密货币时，根据《民法典》第315条，该义务不构成金钱之债，而是转让特定数字资产的给付义务。

    主审法官强调，由于法律并无禁止性规定，涉及加密货币的交易在巴西法律体系下有效，且受到法律的认可与保护。

    波动性与风险承担

    该判决的核心要点之一在于涉及数字资产合同中的风险分配。使用加密货币对交易双方——无论是买方还是卖方——而言均属于高风险投资。

    此类资产的高波动性可能导致购买力发生重大变化，当事人必须在订立合同时充分予以考量。STJ认定，双方均承担该资产折算为雷亚尔时价值上升或下降的风险。因此，市场价格波动不能作为撤销既定转让协议的法律依据。

    商业实践要点

    STJ第三审判庭的判决为采用新型金融技术的私人交易带来了更大的法律确定性。对于构建商业交易的创始人、投资者和高管而言，该先例重申了在当事人自愿约定的前提下，使用加密资产作为支付手段是合法的。然而，司法的认可也伴随着审慎警示：交易主体必须进行事前尽职调查，并清楚认识到价格波动的风险完全由合同各方自行承担。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • STJ Suspends Lawsuits on Short-Term Rentals

    The Second Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ, Brazil’s highest appellate court for non-constitutional matters) has ordered a nationwide suspension of all individual and collective lawsuits challenging rules on short-term property rentals in residential condominiums. The measure directly impacts operations mediated by digital hosting platforms.

    The Core Legal Dispute

    The main debate before the Court aims to establish a clear standard for condominium bylaws. The central question is whether a standard clause establishing a building’s “residential purpose” is sufficient to prohibit short-term rentals of individual units, or whether the condominium bylaws must expressly forbid the practice.

    To settle the matter, the STJ admitted Special Appeals (REsp) 2,272,537 and 2,272,536, with Justice Raul Araújo as rapporteur, under the repetitive appeals system (a mechanism for resolving widespread identical legal questions). The dispute was registered as Topic 1,443.

    The repetitive appeals system, governed by Articles 1,036 et seq. of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), allows the court to select representative cases with identical issues for sampling. Under Article 927, III, of the CPC, the legal holding established in this judgment will be binding on lower-court judges and appellate courts. According to the STJ, the Precedent, Case Law, and Class Action Management Commission (Cogepac) had already identified 50 single-judge and panel decisions on the subject within the Court, underscoring the need for harmonization.

    STJ Precedents on the Topic

    The issue is not new to the Court. The reporting Justice highlighted that panels specialized in private law have previously addressed the scenario. In a prior ruling (REsp 2,121,055), the Second Section—which comprises the Third and Fourth Panels—consolidated the view that an express prohibition in the condominium bylaws is not required to prevent the practice.

    On that occasion, the panel ruled that the mere provision of an exclusively residential purpose for the units makes rentals via digital platforms incompatible with the condominium’s intended use. For short- or ultra-short-term rentals to be permitted in such cases, the STJ established that an assembly resolution approved by a qualified quorum of two-thirds of unit owners is required.

    Practical Impact and Legal Certainty

    The nationwide stay of proceedings prevents local courts from issuing conflicting rulings on the same topic while the STJ finalizes its ruling. According to Justice Raul Araújo, establishing a binding precedent ensures legal certainty and consistency in resolving similar disputes, while streamlining the judicial system.

    Until Topic 1,443 is decided and the binding precedent is established, investors, property owners, and condominium boards must await the superior court’s final ruling, which will set the definitive rules for the commercial use of residential units through short-term rentals.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STJ暂停审理住宅短租相关案件

    STJ（巴西高级司法法院）第二庭裁定暂停巴西全国范围内所有讨论公寓住宅短租规则的诉讼案件（无论是个人诉讼还是集体诉讼）。该措施直接影响通过数字住宿平台开展的业务。

    法律争议的核心

    提交给该法院的核心辩论旨在为业主公约确立明确标准。核心问题在于确定：建筑公约中仅载明“住宅用途”条款是否足以禁止独立单元进行短租，还是公寓必须制定明确禁止此类行为的规则。

    为平息争议，STJ已将由Raul Araújo大法官主审的特别上诉（REsp）第2.272.537号和第2.272.536号列入重复性上诉审理程序。该争议被登记为主题1.443（Tema 1.443）。

    根据《民事诉讼法典》（CPC）第1.036条及后续条款规定的重复性上诉模式，法院可抽取具有相同争议的上诉案件进行示范裁判。根据CPC第927条第III款，该判决所确立的法律规则必须由下级法官和法院强制遵守。据STJ称，判例与集体诉讼管理委员会（Cogepac）已在法院内识别出50起相关的独任裁决和合议庭判决，这证明了统一判例的必要性。

    STJ关于该议题的既有判例

    该议题在法院并非首次出现。主审大法官指出，专审私法案件的审判庭此前已对此类情形进行过分析。在先前的判决中（REsp 2.121.055），汇集了第三庭和第四庭的第二庭巩固了这一观点：无需在业主公约中设立明文禁止即可阻止该短租行为。

    当时合议庭认定，只要单元仅限住宅用途的规定存在，通过数字平台出租就与公寓的目的不相容。对于在此类情况下允许短租或超短租的情形，STJ确立了必须在业主大会上通过决议，并获得三分之二业主的特别法定多数批准。

    实际影响与法律确定性

    在STJ确立最终裁判规则前，全国范围内的诉讼中止可避免地方法院对同一主题作出相互冲突的判决。Raul Araújo大法官表示，形成权威判例可确保类似争议解决中的法律确定性与一致性，同时提高司法系统的效率。

    在主题1.443完成审判并确立具约束力的规则之前，投资者、物业业主和公寓管理方需等待最高级别法院的明确裁决，届时将为通过短租进行住宅物业经济开发制定最终规则。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • STJ Suspende Ações sobre Locação de Curta Temporada

    A Segunda Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) determinou a suspensão de todos os processos judiciais no Brasil, sejam eles individuais ou coletivos, que discutem as regras para a locação de imóveis por curta temporada em condomínios. A medida afeta diretamente as operações intermediadas por plataformas digitais de hospedagem.

    O centro da controvérsia jurídica

    O debate principal levado à Corte busca definir um critério claro para as convenções condominiais. A questão central é determinar se a simples cláusula de “destinação residencial” de um edifício é suficiente para proibir a locação de unidades autônomas por curta temporada, ou se o condomínio precisa ter uma regra que proíba essa prática de forma expressa.

    Para pacificar o assunto, o STJ afetou os Recursos Especiais (REsp) 2.272.537 e 2.272.536, sob a relatoria do ministro Raul Araújo, para julgamento pelo rito dos recursos repetitivos. A controvérsia foi cadastrada como Tema 1.443.

    O modelo de recursos repetitivos, regulado pelos artigos 1.036 e seguintes do Código de Processo Civil (CPC), permite que o tribunal selecione recursos com controvérsias idênticas para julgamento por amostragem. Conforme o artigo 927, III, do CPC, a tese fixada nesse julgamento deverá ser obrigatoriamente observada por juízes e tribunais de instâncias inferiores. Segundo o STJ, a Comissão Gestora de Precedentes, Jurisprudência e Ações Coletivas (Cogepac) já havia identificado 50 decisões monocráticas e acórdãos sobre o tema na Corte, o que justifica a necessidade de uniformização.

    Precedentes do STJ sobre o tema

    A matéria não é inédita no tribunal. O ministro relator destacou que as turmas especializadas em direito privado já analisaram o cenário. Em julgamento anterior (REsp 2.121.055), a Segunda Seção — que reúne a Terceira e a Quarta Turmas — consolidou o entendimento de que não é necessária a vedação expressa na convenção do condomínio para impedir a prática.

    Naquela ocasião, o colegiado definiu que a simples previsão de destinação exclusivamente residencial das unidades já torna a locação via plataformas digitais incompatível com a finalidade do condomínio. Para que as locações de curta ou curtíssima temporada sejam permitidas nesses casos, o STJ estabeleceu que é necessária uma deliberação em assembleia, aprovada por um quórum qualificado de dois terços dos condôminos.

    Impacto prático e segurança jurídica

    A suspensão nacional dos processos evita que tribunais locais profliram decisões divergentes sobre o mesmo tema enquanto o STJ não define a tese final. Segundo o ministro Raul Araújo, a formação de um precedente qualificado garante segurança jurídica e coerência na solução de litígios semelhantes, além de promover economia de tempo para o sistema de justiça.

    Até que o Tema 1.443 seja julgado e a tese vinculante seja firmada, investidores, proprietários de imóveis e condomínios devem aguardar a definição do tribunal superior, que ditará as regras definitivas para a exploração econômica de imóveis residenciais por meio de locação de curta temporada.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • China Prepares New Transnational Anti-Corruption Law

    China Prepares New Transnational Anti-Corruption Law

    China recently presented the draft of its Transnational Anti-Corruption Law. The document sets guidelines to prevent and punish corrupt practices that cross the country’s borders, aiming to protect national sovereignty and deepen international cooperation. The initiative reflects a move toward alignment with global governance practices, with direct impacts on foreign companies and investment funds operating in the Chinese market.

    The scope of transnational corruption

    Article 3 of the draft law broadly defines conduct that constitutes transnational corruption. The legislation encompasses both Chinese citizens and companies (including their branches and subsidiaries) that offer bribes to foreign authorities or international organization officials, as well as foreign individuals and organizations that bribe Chinese public officials and related parties.

    Beyond direct bribery, the text classifies embezzlement, abuse of power, and misappropriation of funds carried out by Chinese entities abroad as transnational corruption. The cross-border transfer of illicit assets and the flight of investigated individuals to other countries are also expressly categorized, demonstrating the government’s intent to monitor capital flows across multiple fronts.

    Control mechanisms and corporate governance

    The coordination of anti-corruption efforts will be led by the National Supervisory Commission, working in conjunction with ministries such as Foreign Affairs, Public Security, Justice, Commerce, and Finance. Articles 7 through 10 of the bill highlight the importance of establishing corporate compliance management systems. Authorities will act to identify risks, issue warnings, and monitor sectors that are more vulnerable to illicit practices.

    The legislation also mandates that financial regulatory bodies intensify anti-money laundering supervision. Article 13 establishes that financial institutions must reinforce the monitoring of cross-border funds, tracking suspicious transactions and reporting evidence of corruption to competent authorities.

    Monitoring of public officials and whistleblowing channels

    The draft introduces strict rules for Chinese public servants. Articles 11 and 12 mandate oversight of public officials who obtain foreign citizenship or permanent residency abroad, while also requiring the disclosure of deposits and investments held outside the country. To strengthen the detection of irregularities, Article 17 guarantees the right of any organization or individual to report transnational corruption acts, ensuring confidentiality and providing rewards for verified information.

    International cooperation and countermeasures

    The draft dedicates a chapter to international judicial cooperation. Articles 21 through 25 detail mechanisms for asset repatriation, extradition, joint investigations, and evidence sharing. Article 22 lists the types of judicial assistance that may be requested from foreign jurisdictions, such as financial account tracking, search and seizure, and freezing of assets.

    A notable provision is Article 6, which establishes China’s right to adopt countermeasures. If a foreign state uses anti-corruption as a pretext to improperly apply its laws extraterritorially—imposing restrictive or discriminatory measures against Chinese companies and citizens—the Chinese government may trigger blocking and retaliation mechanisms under its Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law.

    Practical impact on international business

    The legislative process of this new law points to a stricter regulatory environment for companies operating internationally. Organizations receiving Chinese investment or maintaining operations in China will need to align their integrity programs with the new requirements. Structuring robust governance policies and rigorously monitoring financial transactions become essential elements to ensure safe operations that comply with global standards.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • 中国拟出台反跨国腐败新法

    中国拟出台反跨国腐败新法

    中国近期公布了《反跨国腐败法》草案。该文件确立了预防和惩治跨越国界的腐败行为的指导方针，旨在维护国家主权并深化国际合作。这一举措反映了中国与全球治理实践接轨的趋势，对在中国市场运营的外国企业和投资基金产生直接影响。

    跨国腐败的界定范围

    草案第三条对构成跨国腐败的行为作出了广泛界定。该法案不仅涵盖中国公民和中国企业（包括其境外分支机构和子公司）向外国公职人员或国际组织官员行贿的行为，也涵盖外国个人和组织向中国国家工作人员及其关联方行贿的行为。

    除直接行贿外，草案还将中国境外主体实施的职务侵占、滥用职权和挪用资金等行为定性为跨国腐败。非法资产的跨境转移以及涉案人员的外逃也被明确列入惩治范围，体现了监管层在多领域监控资本流动的决心。

    监管机制与企业治理

    反腐败行动的统筹协调将由国家监察委员会负责，并会同外交部、公安部、司法部、商务部和财政部等部门协同推进。草案第七条至第十条强调了建立企业合规管理体系的重要性。监管部门将开展风险识别、发布预警并对违规风险较高的行业实施重点监控。

    该立法还规定金融监管机构应加强反洗钱审查。第十三条规定，金融机构须强化跨境资金监控，追踪可疑交易，并向主管机关报告腐败线索。

    公职人员监管与举报渠道

    草案对中国公职人员引入了严格规定。第十一条和第十二条明确了对取得外国国籍或境外永久居留权的公职人员的监管，并要求其申报在境外的存款与投资。为强化违规线索发现机制，第十七条保障任何组织或个人举报跨国腐败行为的权利，对举报人信息予以保密，并对有效线索提供者给予奖励。

    国际合作与反制措施

    草案设立专门章节阐述国际司法合作。第二十一条至第二十五条详细规定了资产追回、引渡、联合调查和证据分享等机制。第二十二条列明了可向外国管辖区请求的司法协助形式，包括查询金融账户、搜查扣押以及冻结涉案资产等。

    值得关注的是第六条关于中国采取反制措施的权利规定。若外国以反腐败为借口滥用其法律进行长臂管辖，对中国企业和公民采取限制性或歧视性措施，中国政府可依据《反外国制裁法》等法律启动阻断与反制机制。

    对跨国商业的实际影响

    该法律的推进预示着开展国际业务的企业将面临更严格的合规监管环境。接受中国投资或在中国开展业务的机构，需使其合规与诚信体系契合最新监管要求。构建健全的治理政策并对资金往来实施严密监控，已成为保障业务稳健运行及符合国际规范的核心要素。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • China Prepara Nova Lei Contra Corrupção Transnacional

    China Prepara Nova Lei Contra Corrupção Transnacional

    A China apresentou recentemente o projeto de sua Lei contra Corrupção Transnacional. O documento estabelece diretrizes para prevenir e punir atos de corrupção que ultrapassem as fronteiras do país, visando proteger a soberania nacional e aprofundar a cooperação internacional. A iniciativa reflete um movimento de alinhamento a práticas globais de governança, com impactos diretos para empresas estrangeiras e fundos de investimento que operam no mercado chinês.

    O escopo da corrupção transnacional

    O artigo 3º do projeto de lei define de forma abrangente as condutas que configuram a corrupção transnacional. A legislação engloba tanto cidadãos e empresas chinesas (incluindo suas filiais e subsidiárias) que ofereçam suborno a autoridades estrangeiras ou funcionários de organizações internacionais, quanto indivíduos e organizações estrangeiras que subornem funcionários públicos chineses e seus entes relacionados.

    Além do suborno direto, o texto classifica como corrupção transnacional o peculato, o abuso de poder e o desvio de recursos praticados por entidades chinesas no exterior. A transferência internacional de ativos ilícitos e a fuga de pessoas investigadas para outros países também estão expressamente tipificadas, demonstrando a intenção do governo de monitorar o fluxo de capitais em múltiplas frentes.

    Mecanismos de controle e governança corporativa

    A coordenação das ações anticorrupção ficará a cargo da Comissão Nacional de Supervisão, trabalhando em conjunto com ministérios como os de Relações Exteriores, Segurança Pública, Justiça, Comércio e Finanças. Os artigos 7º a 10º do projeto destacam a importância da criação de sistemas de gestão de conformidade corporativa. As autoridades atuarão na identificação de riscos, emissão de alertas e monitoramento de setores mais suscetíveis a práticas ilícitas.

    A legislação também prevê que os órgãos de controle financeiro intensifiquem a fiscalização contra a lavagem de dinheiro. O artigo 13º estabelece que instituições financeiras devem reforçar o monitoramento de fundos transfronteiriços, rastreando transações suspeitas e reportando indícios de corrupção às autoridades competentes.

    Monitoramento de agentes públicos e canal de denúncias

    O projeto introduz regras estritas para o funcionalismo público chinês. Os artigos 11 e 12 determinam a fiscalização sobre funcionários públicos que obtenham nacionalidade estrangeira ou residência permanente no exterior, além de exigir a declaração de depósitos e investimentos mantidos fora do país. Para fortalecer a detecção de irregularidades, o artigo 17 garante o direito de qualquer organização ou indivíduo denunciar atos de corrupção transnacional, assegurando sigilo e prevendo recompensas para informações válidas.

    Cooperação internacional e contramedidas

    O texto dedica um capítulo à cooperação jurídica internacional. Os artigos 21 a 25 detalham mecanismos para repatriação de ativos, extradição, investigações conjuntas e compartilhamento de provas. O artigo 22 lista as formas de assistência judicial que podem ser solicitadas a jurisdições estrangeiras, como rastreamento de contas financeiras, busca e apreensão, e bloqueio de bens.

    Um ponto de destaque é o artigo 6º, que estabelece o direito da China de adotar contramedidas. Caso um Estado estrangeiro utilize a pauta anticorrupção como pretexto para aplicar indevidamente suas leis de forma extraterritorial, adotando medidas restritivas ou discriminatórias contra empresas e cidadãos chineses, o governo chinês poderá acionar mecanismos de bloqueio e retaliação com base na sua Lei Antissanções Estrangeiras.

    Impacto prático para negócios internacionais

    A tramitação desta nova lei indica um cenário de maior rigor regulatório para empresas que operam internacionalmente. Organizações que recebem investimentos chineses ou que mantêm operações na China precisarão alinhar seus programas de integridade às novas exigências. A estruturação de políticas sólidas de governança e o monitoramento rigoroso de transações financeiras tornam-se elementos centrais para a manutenção de operações seguras e em conformidade com as normas globais.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • 人工智能与企业信义义务

    人工智能与企业信义义务

    企业决策中的人工智能

    在企业环境中采用人工智能（AI）正在改变组织的运营方式。当这项技术开始直接影响企业决策时，便会产生新的风险，需要企业领导层予以密切关注。

    新风险，旧原则

    尽管人工智能具有固有的技术创新性，但在企业背景下评估其使用的基础仍然立足于传统法律概念。人工智能的应用直接涉及信义义务领域。

    这意味着采用这些工具并不能免除管理层已确立的责任。指导企业运作的原则保持不变，要求管理人员的监督范围同样涵盖支持公司战略选择的流程和技术工具。

    监督与治理

    对管理人员而言，当前的情势强化了积极监督的必要性。将人工智能系统用于支持决策时，必须配合相应的控制机制，以确保履行信义义务，并保证以尽责的方式管理新的技术风险。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • Artificial Intelligence and Fiduciary Duties in Companies

    Artificial Intelligence and Fiduciary Duties in Companies

    Artificial intelligence in business decisions

    The adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in the corporate environment has transformed how organizations operate. When this technology directly influences business decisions, new risks emerge that require careful attention from corporate leadership.

    New risks, same principles

    Despite the technological innovation inherent in artificial intelligence, the framework for assessing its use in a corporate context remains grounded in traditional concepts. The application of AI falls directly within the realm of fiduciary duties.

    This means that adopting these tools does not relieve managers of their established responsibilities. The principles governing corporate conduct remain the same, requiring directors’ oversight to extend to the technological processes and tools that support strategic choices.

    Oversight and governance

    For corporate officers and directors, the current landscape reinforces the need for active oversight. Supporting decisions through artificial intelligence systems must be paired with control mechanisms that ensure compliance with fiduciary duties, guaranteeing that new technological risks are managed diligently.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.