本文關(guān)鍵詞： 訴訟詐騙行為 訴訟詐騙罪 想象競和犯 第三人撤銷之訴　出處：《蘭州大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：訴訟詐騙行為一直為學界和司法部門所關(guān)注,最高人民檢察院法律政策研究室于2002年9月25日作出《關(guān)于通過偽造證據(jù)騙取法院民事裁判占有他人財物的行為如何適用法律問題的答復(fù)》(以下簡稱《答復(fù)》),對司法實務(wù)中出現(xiàn)的訴訟詐騙行為的處理作了相關(guān)說明。該《答復(fù)》在一定程度上緩解了司法實踐中的壓力,面臨訴訟詐騙行為不再是“法無明文規(guī)定不為罪”的局面,但由于受現(xiàn)有刑法框架限制,該《答復(fù)》并不能窮盡訴訟詐騙行為的表現(xiàn)形式,因此依然無法從根源上杜絕訴訟詐騙行為的滋生和蔓延。本文案例就是《答復(fù)》中并未說明但屬于典型的訴訟詐騙行為。鑒于此,本文針對訴訟詐騙行為的規(guī)制分實然和應(yīng)然兩個層面。 本文以萬才華妨害作證案為切入點,首先簡述具體案情和審理情況,指出本案中的主要爭議焦點,進而針對每一對焦點問題提出筆者個人的解決思路。接著以案件的爭議焦點為切入點,具體分析本案中萬才華的訴訟詐騙行為的定性問題、定罪問題和量刑問題。最后,筆者建議從實然和應(yīng)然兩個層面來規(guī)制訴訟詐騙行為。對于司法實務(wù)中亟待解決的問題堅持在現(xiàn)有法律體制下采取適當擴大詐騙罪的犯罪構(gòu)成要件、運用想象競和犯理論和在刑事訴訟領(lǐng)域增加第三人撤銷之訴等措施；對于司法理論完善問題則通過補充訴訟詐騙罪來解決。本文旨在拋磚引玉,對于訴訟詐騙行為的規(guī)制問題,希望能給法學界和法律實務(wù)界的專家、學者一點啟示,為建立誠實、公平、公正的司法秩序提供有益的理論參考。
[Abstract]:Litigation fraud has always been concerned by the academic community and the judiciary. On September 25th 2002, the legal Policy Research Office of the Supreme people's Procuratorate issued an answer to the question of how to apply the law to the act of defrauding a court civil judge of possessing another person's property by falsifying evidence (hereinafter referred to as "the reply"). The handling of litigation fraud in judicial practice has been explained. To a certain extent, the answer has alleviated the pressure in judicial practice. Facing the situation that the action of litigation fraud is no longer a "crime without express provisions of the law", however, due to the limitation of the existing criminal law framework, the answer cannot exhaust the manifestations of the action of fraud in litigation. Therefore, it is still not possible to root out the breeding and spreading of litigation fraud. The case in this paper is a typical litigation fraud that is not explained in the answer. In view of this, This paper aims at the regulation of litigation fraud in two levels: realistic and supposed. In this paper, taking the case of obstructing testimony of all talents as the starting point, first of all, a brief description of the specific case and the trial situation, pointing out the main dispute focus in this case, Then the author puts forward the author's personal solution to each pair of focus issues. Then with the focus of the case as the starting point, the author concretely analyzes the qualitative problem, conviction problem and sentencing problem of the ten thousand talented litigation fraud in this case. The author suggests that the fraud should be regulated from two aspects: real and ought. To solve the urgent problems in the judicial practice, the author insists on the appropriate expansion of the constitutive elements of the crime of fraud under the existing legal system. Using the theory of imaginative competition and crime and increasing the action of the third party in the field of criminal procedure, the perfection of the judicial theory is solved by the supplementary crime of fraud. It is hoped that it will give some enlightenment to the experts and scholars in the field of law and law practice, and provide a useful theoretical reference for the establishment of an honest, fair and just judicial order.
【學位授予單位】：蘭州大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D920.5;D924.36

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙秉志;張偉珂;;訴訟詐騙問題新論[J];甘肅社會科學;2012年06期

2 譚興;;打擊虛假訴訟 呼喚誠信回歸[J];法制與社會;2013年02期

3 王春麗;周寧靜;;虛假訴訟以詐騙罪定性若干問題研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(下旬);2013年02期

4 李炳祥;;訴訟欺詐的法律定性及其刑法規(guī)制[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年01期

5 周翔;;虛假訴訟定義辨析[J];河北法學;2011年06期

6 安文霞;;增設(shè)訴訟詐騙罪的立法構(gòu)想——以詐騙罪的對比研究為視角[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學院學報;2012年02期

7 栗明;陳吉利;吳萍;;論訴訟欺詐的法律定性及其刑法規(guī)制[J];理論月刊;2011年04期

8 洪巧;;我國訴訟欺詐法律規(guī)制的困境與出路探尋[J];湖南人文科技學院學報;2013年05期

9 諸葛e，

本文編號：1551352