Seite 173 [173]
OCR
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°
