【摘要】：隨著近幾年金融危機的爆發(fā)及蔓延，我國中小企業(yè)向銀行融資變得越來越難，民間融資就成為中小企業(yè)解決資金短缺問題的重要途徑。但是，隨之而來的集資詐騙犯罪也呈現(xiàn)上升的趨勢，，集資詐騙不僅侵害了財產(chǎn)所有權(quán)和國家金融管理秩序，而且一定條件下還可能釀成金融風(fēng)潮，直接影響社會穩(wěn)定。集資詐騙犯罪在我國多發(fā)的原因十分復(fù)雜，一方面與我國經(jīng)濟體制的負面影響有關(guān)，但更重要的原因還是由我國現(xiàn)階段與金融相關(guān)的法制的不健全所造成的。在我國刑法理論界與司法實務(wù)界，對集資詐騙的罪與非罪、此罪與彼罪的界限，對集資詐騙罪的罪數(shù)形態(tài)以及刑罰適用等問題尚存較大爭議。有鑒于此，本文重點就集資詐騙罪在司法認定中存在的問題提出了一些觀點，試圖通過對本罪司法認定過程中有關(guān)問題的分析，以期為集資詐騙罪的司法實踐提供一定幫助。 筆者分三個部分對集資詐騙罪的司法認定和刑罰適用問題進行了論述。第一部分從實行行為、主體和責(zé)任形式三個方面對本罪的罪與非罪進行了認定。關(guān)于“詐騙方法”，筆者提出高回報率不是必要條件，詐騙行為和危害結(jié)果之間必須存在因果關(guān)系；關(guān)于何為“非法集資”，筆者認為“非法”應(yīng)理解為實質(zhì)上的非法，而不是形式上的非法，指出“社會公眾”認定的范圍不應(yīng)擴大化；關(guān)于如何認定“數(shù)額較大”，提出應(yīng)該以交付數(shù)額減去案發(fā)前行為人已返還的本息來認定本罪的犯罪數(shù)額。對“非法占有為目的”的理解，提出存在“間接故意”和沒有“事后故意”。第二部分論述了集資詐騙罪特殊形態(tài)的認定問題。關(guān)于本罪預(yù)備犯、中止犯及未遂犯的認定，筆者認為在本罪的非既遂形態(tài)中，應(yīng)當(dāng)將未遂形態(tài)予以犯罪化，而預(yù)備和中止行為只需金融主管機關(guān)予以行政處罰即可。筆者從正犯、幫助犯和構(gòu)成其他犯罪的集資詐騙案件行為人三個方面對本罪的共犯加以認定。通過對法條競合、想象競合的比較分析，指出本罪與其他近似罪的界限；進一步提出應(yīng)按照重罪行為吸收輕罪行為的原則，根據(jù)案件的具體情況對牽連犯定罪論處。第三部分是集資詐騙罪的刑罰適用問題。指出本罪不應(yīng)適用死刑的四個理由，建議通過引入倍比罰金制來完善罰金刑，闡述了司法實踐中如何適用沒收財產(chǎn)刑，提出對于本罪的主體，特別是單位主體，應(yīng)當(dāng)適用剝奪從事特定職業(yè)或行業(yè)的資格刑。
[Abstract]:With the outbreak and spread of financial crisis in recent years, it is becoming more and more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises in China to finance by banks. Private financing has become an important way for SMEs to solve the problem of capital shortage. However, the following crime of financing fraud also shows an upward trend. The financing fraud not only infringes the property ownership and the national financial management order, but also may lead to a financial trend under certain conditions, which directly affects social stability. The reasons for the crime of financing fraud in China are very complex. On the one hand, it has something to do with the negative impact of our economic system, but the more important reason is still caused by the unsound legal system related to finance in our country at the present stage. In the field of criminal law theory and judicial practice, there are still some disputes about the crime and non-crime of financing fraud, the boundary between the crime and the crime, the number of crimes and the application of penalty. In view of this, this paper puts forward some points of view on the problems existing in the judicial cognizance of the crime of raising funds for fraud, and attempts to provide some help for the judicial practice of the crime of raising funds through the analysis of the related problems in the course of the judicial determination of the crime. The author discusses the problem of judicial cognizance and penalty application of the crime of fraud of raising funds in three parts. The first part determines the crime and non-crime from three aspects: the act, the subject and the form of responsibility. With regard to "fraud method", the author suggests that high rate of return is not a necessary condition, and that there must be a causal relationship between fraud and harmful results, and that the author thinks that "illegal" should be understood as "illegal" in essence, and that there must be a causal relationship between fraud and harmful results. The author points out that the scope of "social public" should not be expanded, and puts forward that the amount of crime should be determined by the amount of delivery minus the principal and interest returned by the perpetrator before the crime. On the understanding of "illegal possession", the author points out that there exists "indirect intention" and "no afterwards intention". The second part discusses the identification of the special form of the crime of financing fraud. As for the determination of the preparatory crime, the suspended crime and the attempted crime, the author thinks that in the non-accomplished form of the crime, the attempted form should be criminalized, while the preparation and suspension of the act only need the administrative punishment of the competent financial authority. The author identifies the accomplice of this crime from three aspects: principal offender, aiding offender and the perpetrator of the financing fraud case. Through the comparative analysis of competing articles of law and imaginative concurrence, the author points out the boundary between this crime and other similar crimes, and further puts forward that according to the principle that felony acts absorb misdemeanor acts and according to the specific circumstances of the case, the conviction of implicated offenders should be punished. The third part is about the application of penalty for the crime of fraud of raising funds. This paper points out four reasons why the death penalty should not be applied in this crime, proposes to perfect the fine penalty by introducing the double ratio fine system, expounds how to apply the confiscation of property penalty in the judicial practice, and puts forward the subject of this crime, especially the unit subject. The penalty of disqualification from a particular occupation or profession shall be applied.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D924.35;D926

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 吳學(xué)斌,俞娟;論我國刑法中的“以非法占有為目的”[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2005年02期

2 張明楷;論財產(chǎn)罪的非法占有目的[J];法商研究;2005年05期

3 吳玉梅;;中德金融詐騙罪比較研究——以犯罪分類標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和規(guī)范保護目的為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2006年03期

4 周宏偉;;集資詐騙案件非法占有故意時點確定之探究[J];科教文匯(上旬刊);2011年01期

5 劉明祥;刑法中的非法占有目的[J];法學(xué)研究;2000年02期

6 高艷東;;詐騙罪與集資詐騙罪的規(guī)范超越:吳英案的罪與罰[J];中外法學(xué);2012年02期

7 張建;俞小海;;集資詐騙罪對象研究中的認識誤區(qū)及其辨正[J];中國刑事法雜志;2011年06期

8 王占洲;;金融詐騙罪“非法占有目的”的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];政治與法律;2008年06期

9 喻偉,聶立澤;單位犯罪若干問題研究[J];浙江社會科學(xué);2000年04期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 張明楷;[N];人民法院報;2003年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 龔玉華;集資詐騙罪若干問題研究[D];西南大學(xué);2010年

本文編號：2197281