本文選題：非法吸收　切入點(diǎn)：變相吸收　出處：《西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著轟動(dòng)全國(guó)的“孫大午案”、“吳英案”的相繼曝光,非法集資類犯罪案件在我國(guó)許多地區(qū)沉渣泛起,呈現(xiàn)出快速上升的趨勢(shì),并且案情疑難化、手段專業(yè)化,為司法實(shí)務(wù)在認(rèn)定非法集資類犯罪的問(wèn)題上帶來(lái)重重阻礙。從“孫大午案”起,就已經(jīng)開(kāi)始引起學(xué)界、金融界、媒體乃至群眾的廣泛關(guān)注和熱烈爭(zhēng)議,尤其是在非法吸收公眾存款罪、合法民間借貸、集資詐騙罪三者之間界限認(rèn)定上存在分歧。爭(zhēng)論的焦點(diǎn)在于“變相吸收”行為的表現(xiàn)形式如何判定?對(duì)于“公眾”該作何理解?集資款的使用是否關(guān)系該罪的認(rèn)定,是否有構(gòu)成其他犯罪的可能?是否需要發(fā)生客觀的危害結(jié)果才能認(rèn)定為“擾亂金融秩序”?基于對(duì)這些爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題的思考,本文對(duì)關(guān)于非法吸收公眾存款罪認(rèn)定的相關(guān)問(wèn)題予以詳細(xì)探討。 本文除了前言與結(jié)語(yǔ)外,共分為三個(gè)部分對(duì)非法吸收公眾存款罪的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題進(jìn)行探討： 第一部分,對(duì)非法吸收公眾存款罪認(rèn)定的總體把握。首先確立非法吸收公眾存款罪的基本性質(zhì),即屬于非法集資類犯罪之一。通過(guò)對(duì)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理非法集資刑事案件具體應(yīng)用法律若干問(wèn)題解釋》(法釋[2010]18號(hào),下文簡(jiǎn)稱《解釋》)的解讀,以及對(duì)第一條(認(rèn)定非法吸收公眾存款)“除刑法另有規(guī)定的以外”和第四條(集資詐騙罪)“使用詐騙方法實(shí)施本解釋第二條(非法吸收公眾存款罪)規(guī)定所列行為的”的研究,找出非法集資犯罪、非法吸收公眾存款罪以及其他集資類犯罪的關(guān)系,得出非法集資犯罪是所有集資類犯罪的上位概念,而非法吸收公眾存款罪是集資犯罪的基礎(chǔ)罪名。因此在對(duì)非法吸收公眾存款罪的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題上,理應(yīng)在非法集資的大背景下考慮,即非法吸收行為必須具有非法集資性質(zhì)。其次,探討非法吸收公眾存款罪的基本構(gòu)成。根據(jù)我國(guó)犯罪構(gòu)成四要件理論,大致梳理了本罪的客體、客觀方面、主體、主觀方面的要求,指出在本罪認(rèn)定問(wèn)題上的爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)——“變相吸收”行為方式的認(rèn)定、對(duì)“公眾”的理解以及本罪是否為結(jié)果犯的問(wèn)題。最后,分析非法吸收公眾存款行為的特征。從本罪的客觀要件中引申出非法吸收行為應(yīng)當(dāng)同時(shí)具備非法性、利誘性、公開(kāi)性和社會(huì)性四個(gè)特征,并標(biāo)明作者所產(chǎn)生的亟待下文解決的疑問(wèn)。 第二部分,是本文的重點(diǎn),即解決第一部分所提出的疑點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。最先解決的是具有吸收公眾存款資格的金融機(jī)構(gòu)是否為本罪適格的主體。從《銀行法》規(guī)定、該罪的立法目的、以及市場(chǎng)主體地位平等性三個(gè)方面予以論證,得出具有吸收公眾存款資格的金融機(jī)構(gòu)如若有非法吸收行為的理應(yīng)受到刑法規(guī)制,只是在適用刑法最后一道防線時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)慎重。其次解決本罪客觀方面的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,即對(duì)“非法吸收”、“變相吸收”內(nèi)涵和表現(xiàn)形式的把握,資金的使用,以及擾亂金融秩序的理解。作者認(rèn)為《解釋》不可能完整羅列所有的變相吸收的行為方式,但是無(wú)論非法集資者的手段如何高超、如何隱蔽,只要抓住它的本質(zhì)(內(nèi)涵),就能準(zhǔn)確將其識(shí)別出來(lái)并繩之以法。本文摒棄“吸收資金”、“給付回報(bào)”、“不特定多數(shù)人”等傳統(tǒng)的認(rèn)定模式,分別從集資性和公開(kāi)性、社會(huì)性兩方面認(rèn)定“變相吸收”的表現(xiàn)形式。作者認(rèn)為司法實(shí)踐中通過(guò)“出資者(被害人)的被動(dòng)投資性”來(lái)認(rèn)定非法集資性質(zhì)更具可操作性,即出資者拿出資金不是購(gòu)買商品或者服務(wù)而是為了獲得穩(wěn)定的、無(wú)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的高額回報(bào),并且這種利益的取得完全取決于集資者或者第三方的行動(dòng),并不體現(xiàn)出資者的意愿；并且以賒銷付息、和賒購(gòu)付息兩種交易形式為例,證明了該方法的可行性。而對(duì)于公開(kāi)性的認(rèn)識(shí),作者認(rèn)為公開(kāi)宣傳只是認(rèn)定公開(kāi)性的補(bǔ)充,而不是必要條件,因此對(duì)待口口相傳的宣傳形式應(yīng)當(dāng)辯證看待；吸取英美國(guó)家私募制度中的獲許投資者概念,將從出資者的投資經(jīng)驗(yàn)、經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力以及與集資者的親疏關(guān)系三種情形綜合考慮非法吸收行為的社會(huì)性特征,以解決“不特定多數(shù)論”本身存在的不確定問(wèn)題。在集資款使用問(wèn)題上,作者從該罪的立法目的、以及《解釋》的規(guī)定來(lái)看,堅(jiān)持認(rèn)為此罪不是目的犯,不要求資金的用途,但是承認(rèn)資金的使用可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致其他犯罪的情形。對(duì)“擾亂金融秩序”的理解,僅從法律條文的內(nèi)部構(gòu)造上即可判斷出它的結(jié)果屬性。 第三部分,把握非法吸收公眾存款罪與幾種常見(jiàn)合法融資活動(dòng)的界限,以及與其他非法集資犯罪的區(qū)別。本文認(rèn)為非法吸收公眾存款罪與合法民間借貸的界限在于出資者出資目的、融資范圍和融資對(duì)象不同：非法吸收公眾存款罪中出資者的目的在于投資,融資范圍也具有不可控性,集資對(duì)象大多無(wú)經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力、無(wú)投資經(jīng)驗(yàn)、與吸收存款者無(wú)親密關(guān)系的普通百姓；相反民間出資者不具有投資的性質(zhì),融資范圍確定、并且不會(huì)任意擴(kuò)大,融資對(duì)象更是熟人模式,不會(huì)涉及不特定的社會(huì)公眾。在與委托理財(cái)?shù)慕缍ㄖ?作者認(rèn)為如果受托人在委托理財(cái)中承諾保本收益,并且投資活動(dòng)沒(méi)有按照投資者的意愿進(jìn)行的則具有非法集資性質(zhì),再同時(shí)滿足出資者公眾性的話,非法吸收公眾存款的本質(zhì)則暴露無(wú)遺。相反若只是承諾保本收益,仍然按照委托者意愿進(jìn)行投資,則只能是違法行為。本章后半部分主要討論了非法吸收公眾存款罪與其他非法集資類犯罪的區(qū)別。本文認(rèn)為從集資者是否具有非法占有的目的,以及詐騙手段是否為犯罪所必需兩點(diǎn)出發(fā),即可從非法吸收公眾存款罪中分辨出集資詐騙罪。該罪與擅自發(fā)行股票、公司、企業(yè)債券罪的區(qū)別在于,前者發(fā)行股票、債券系虛假的,或者盡管是真實(shí)的,轉(zhuǎn)讓行為并非集資者本意；而后者發(fā)行的債券、股票系真實(shí)的,并且真實(shí)地發(fā)行出去,只是不具備發(fā)行條件或者沒(méi)有被批準(zhǔn),手段不符合法律規(guī)定而已。在該罪與公募基金的非法經(jīng)營(yíng)犯罪的界限問(wèn)題上,本文認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)從公募基金的前期準(zhǔn)備工作的真實(shí)性出發(fā)來(lái)鑒別兩罪。對(duì)于與欺詐發(fā)行股票、債券罪的區(qū)別,從欺詐的內(nèi)容和對(duì)象兩方面即可作出判別。該罪與組織、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)傳銷活動(dòng)罪是最容易區(qū)別的,首先行為人與被害人的關(guān)系是平等的,而后者具有嚴(yán)重的層級(jí)劃分和等級(jí)制度。 本文的創(chuàng)新與不足：雖然非法吸收公眾存款罪是個(gè)舊題材,研究文獻(xiàn)數(shù)不勝數(shù),但是作者在探討該問(wèn)題的時(shí)候敢于嘗試“舊瓶裝新酒”,尤其是在對(duì)“變相吸收”內(nèi)涵的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題上,擺脫固有的研究思路,運(yùn)用逆向思維,從出資者被動(dòng)投資性角度來(lái)判定非法吸收公眾存款罪的集資性質(zhì),以出資者的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力、投資經(jīng)驗(yàn)、以及與集資者的親疏關(guān)系三方面來(lái)定義“社會(huì)公眾”。率先討論了吸收資金的使用問(wèn)題可能構(gòu)成其他犯罪的情形。而且本文在探討該罪與合法融資、其他集資類犯罪的區(qū)別時(shí),能夠?qū)⒈疚牡难芯砍晒麘?yīng)用到比較過(guò)程當(dāng)中,使得本文的創(chuàng)新成果得到很好地驗(yàn)證,并且在司法實(shí)踐中也容易操作。鑒于作者沒(méi)有系統(tǒng)學(xué)習(xí)過(guò)金融專業(yè)知識(shí),對(duì)涉及金融的相關(guān)理論理解不夠,導(dǎo)致在本文的寫(xiě)作過(guò)程中可能存在對(duì)金融犯罪理解偏差的問(wèn)題,望讀者予以指正。
[Abstract]:As a national "Sun Dawu case", "Wu Ying case" have been exposed, illegal fund-raising crime cases in the surface sediment in many parts of China, showing a rapid upward trend, and in the case of difficult, professional means, for the judicial practice brought many obstacles in the identification of illegal fund-raising crime from the problem. "Sun Dawu case", has been caused by the academic circles, the financial sector, attention and heated debate the media and the masses, especially in the crime of illegal deposits from the public, legitimate private lending, the boundaries between the crime of fraudulent fund-raising three to identify differences. How to form the focus of debate is "disguised absorption behavior" the judge? What understanding of the "public" of the use of funds? That are related to the crime, whether constitutes another crime? Whether objective harm result can be identified "Disturbing the financial order"? Based on the consideration of these disputes, this paper discusses the related issues of the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits.
In addition to the preface and conclusion, this article is divided into three parts to discuss the identification of the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits.
The first part of the overall cognizance of the crime of illegal deposits from the public to grasp the basic properties. First establish the crime of illegal deposits from the public, which belongs to the illegal fund-raising crime. One of the "Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in the trial of criminal cases of illegal fund-raising explanations (France - [2010]18, hereinafter referred to as the" interpretation ") the interpretation, and on the first (identification of illegal deposits from the public)" except as otherwise stipulated by the criminal law "and article fourth (fraud)" use fraud method implementation of the interpretation of article second (Crime of illegal deposits from the public behavior of listed) Regulations ", to find out the crime of illegal fund-raising, illegal deposits from the public the crime and other fund-raising crime, the crime of illegal fund-raising is all fund-raising crime concept, the crime of illegal deposits from the public is the basis for charges of fund-raising crime. The cognizance of the crime of illegal absorbing public deposits, should be considered in the context of illegal fund-raising, illegal illegal fund-raising behavior must have the absorption properties. Secondly, the basic constitution of the crime of illegal absorbing public deposits four. According to the theory of the constitution of crime in our country, generally combed the object of the crime, the objective aspect. The subject, subjective requirements, points out that the controversy in the crime of "disguised absorption" behavior, the "public" and the understanding of this crime is committed as a result of the problem. Finally, analysis of the characteristics of non law public deposits behavior. From the objective elements of the crime of illegal absorption of extended behavior it should also have the illegal inducements, public, and social four characteristics, and to solve the questions below that generated by the authors.
The second part is the focus of this paper is to solve the problems, proposed in the first part. The first is to solve the financial institutions with public deposits is the subject of the qualification qualification. From the provisions of "Bank Law >, the legislative purpose of the crime, and the equality of the market position of the three aspects to prove that. With deposits from the public financial institutions qualified if there should be illegal absorption by criminal law, criminal law only in the last line of defense should be carefully. Then solve the problem of judging the objective aspect of this crime, namely the" non absorption method "," disguised absorption "connotation and the manifestation of the grasp, the use of funds, and understand and disrupt the financial order. The authors think that < > interpretation could not complete the list all disguised absorption behavior, but whether the illegal fund-raising means how excellent, how subtle, only To grasp its essence (connotation), which can accurately identified and brought to justice. This paper abandons the absorption of funds "," payment in return "," identification of the traditional mode of certain people ", respectively from the fund-raising and openness, two aspects of social identification forms of" disguised absorption ". That in the judicial practice through the" investor (the victim) passive investment "to identify the nature of the illegal fund-raising more operational, which investors allocate funds to purchase goods or services but not in order to obtain a stable, no risk of high returns, and the benefits of the obtained depends entirely on the financing or third party action does not reflect the investor's intention; and to the credit service, credit and service of two kinds of transaction forms as an example to prove the feasibility of the method. For the understanding of publicity, publicity for that Just as supplement for public, rather than a necessary condition, so treat word-of-mouth propaganda form should be regarded dialectically; absorb private system in the Anglo American countries allowed investors from concept, investor investment experience, characteristics of social and economic strength and financing of the relationship of three kinds of situations considered illegal absorption. In order to solve the "unspecified" theory of uncertainty inherent problems. In the use of funds on the issue, the author from the legislative purpose of the crime, and explain the provisions of < >, insist that this crime is not absichtsdelikte, does not require the use of funds, but admitted that the use of funds may lead to other criminal cases for "disrupting financial order", only from the internal structure of the legal provisions on the judgment of its result attributes.
The third part, to grasp the boundaries of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and several common legal financing activities, and other illegal fund-raising crime. The boundaries of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and legitimate private lending is the investor investment, financing and financing scope of different objects: the crime of illegal deposits from the public in the purpose of investor that investment, financing is not controllable, fund-raising target mostly no economic strength, no investment experience, no close relationship with the absorption of deposits of ordinary people; instead the folk investor does not have the property investment, financing scope, and will not expand any object, financing is not involved in the public acquaintance model. Not specific. In the definition and entrust financing, the author thinks that if the trustee promises guaranteed income in finance, and investment activities are not in accordance with the investment Investors will have the nature of illegal fund-raising, to satisfy the investor of the public, the nature of illegal deposits from the public. On the contrary, if only is completely unmasked promise guaranteed income, investment is still in accordance with the client wishes, it can only be illegal. The latter part of this chapter mainly discusses the crime of illegal deposits from the public and other illegal fund-raising crime. This paper argues that from the financing of the purpose of illegal possession, and whether the means of fraud crime on two points, the crime of illegal deposits from the public in distinguish the crime of financial fraud. And issuing stocks, corporate bonds, the difference between the crime lies in the former. The issuance of stocks, bonds, or even false, true, transfer behavior is not financing intention; whose bonds, stocks, real, and real issue Go out, just don't have the conditions for issuing or not approved, means do not comply with the law. In the public fund crime and crime of illegal business boundaries, this paper thinks that we should distinguish the two crimes from the point of view of the authenticity of the public fund preparatory work. For the fraudulent issuance of shares, the difference between bonds of sin the discriminating from the two aspects of the content and the object of the crime of fraud. With the organization, leadership pyramid schemes is the most easy to distinguish, firstly the relationship between man and the victim's behavior is equal, and the latter has the hierarchy and caste system seriously.
The innovation and insufficiency of this paper: Although the crime of illegal deposits from the public is an old topic, but the author in the research literature beyond count, when the discussion of this issue to try "new wine in old bottles", especially in the identification of the "disguised absorption" connotation, get rid of research ideas inherent in the use of reverse thinking, financing nature to judge the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits from the investor point of passive investment, the investor's economic strength, investment experience, and financing of the relationship in three aspects of the definition of "public". The first problem is discussed using the absorption of funds may constitute other crimes. And based on the discussion of the crime and illegal financing, other fund-raising crime, the results of this study can be applied to the comparison process, the innovation results are verified, and in our In practice, it is easy to operate. In view of the fact that the author did not systematically learn about financial expertise, he didn't understand enough theories about finance, which led to the misunderstanding of financial crime in the process of writing.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.33

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 彭冰;;非法集資行為的界定——評(píng)最高人民法院關(guān)于非法集資的司法解釋[J];法學(xué)家;2011年06期

2 鐘瑞慶;;集資詐騙案件刑事管制的邏輯與現(xiàn)實(shí)——浙江東陽(yáng)吳英集資詐騙案一審判決的法律分析[J];法治研究;2011年09期

3 周澤;對(duì)孫大午“非法集資”案的刑法學(xué)思考——兼談非法吸收公眾存款罪的認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)律師;2003年11期

4 丁慧敏;;論“變相吸收公眾存款”——以三種商品交易形式為例[J];政治與法律;2011年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1712192