Oldal 173 [173]
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT OF COURT DEFINED
Contempt Defined
Black’s Law Dictionary defines contempt as ‘[c/onduct that defies the authority or
dignity of a court or legislature [and] such conduct interferes with the administration
of justice, it is punishable, usually by fine or imprisonment. Contempt of court,
a sub-type of contempt, may appear in direct or indirect (or constructive) forms.
The first is an act that occurs “in the presence of the court which tends to interrupt
its proceedings and subvert justice.’ As we will see below, as a rule, bankruptcy
courts have criminal contempt powers only in these cases.
As opposed to that, indirect contempt, encompasses such contumacious acts
which do not take place in front of the court but still “tend to degrade the court,
or to obstruct, or defeat the administration of justice,” (e.g., sending threatening
letters). These criminal contempt cases are already in the bailiwick of district
courts though the ‘preparatory phases’ normally occur before bankruptcy courts.
One line of cases is generated, indeed, by the uncertainties and the resulting
differing interpretation of courts on where the exact borderlines of direct versus
indirect contempts are.
European civil law systems typically do not possess a distinct, monolith
legal concept, similar to common laws ‘contempt of court.’ In lieu of a concept,
they have rather “merely” rules, provisions or sometimes even distinct crimes
scattered throughout various sources. This discrepancy causes cognitive problems
detectable in research and in law reform processes.
Civil versus Criminal Contempt
Notwithstanding that this writing is focused on the criminal prong of contempt,
one should not forget that the concept rests on two feet: the second being its
inseparable civil twin. Although numerous dilemmas concerning the demarcation
of the application-zones of the two have remained alive up until today, the basic
rule has largely remained the same as stated in 1951, and “filt is the purpose of
the punishment rather than the character of the act punished which determines
whether the proceeding to punish is for civil or rather criminal contempt.’
4 Ibid, at 12.
12 Ibid, at 13.
13 Contempts of Court, 1951 JAG Journal 12.
«171°