本文選題：非法占有目的　切入點(diǎn)：集資糾紛　出處：《四川師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：對(duì)集資詐騙罪而言,其構(gòu)成要件中的非法集資行為具有行政犯的性質(zhì),由于其行為中附加了使用詐騙方法來非法占有對(duì)方財(cái)物的目的,具有了詐騙性質(zhì),本質(zhì)上是自然犯。因此,集資詐騙行為在世界各國法律上均作入罪處理,具體是僅單設(shè)罪名,還是包容進(jìn)普通詐騙罪或其他罪名,各國有所不同。我國刑法同時(shí)規(guī)定了詐騙罪和合同詐騙罪,對(duì)集資詐騙罪的成立應(yīng)從嚴(yán)解釋,即使不構(gòu)成集資詐騙罪,也有詐騙罪和合同詐騙罪予以規(guī)制。本文主要研究內(nèi)容為集資詐騙罪的認(rèn)定并提出立法建議,其構(gòu)成要件中“非法占有目的”指的是犯罪行為人在直接故意的心理支配下希望非法占有他人財(cái)產(chǎn)的所有權(quán);“使用詐騙方法”應(yīng)做廣義理解,即任何行為人基于自身自愿的故意做出有違本來面目的“說法”、“承諾”、“行為”等而使對(duì)方陷入錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)識(shí)并交付財(cái)產(chǎn)的皆可認(rèn)定;“數(shù)額較大”的計(jì)算除卻司法解釋中所明確的個(gè)人集資10萬以上,單位集資50萬以上外,筆者贊同以被害人直接損失計(jì)算,扣除行為人已歸還部分;集資詐騙罪與借貸糾紛、廣義集資糾紛及非法吸收公眾存款罪、詐騙罪、欺詐發(fā)行股票、債券罪等相類似的集資或詐騙行為的根本區(qū)分點(diǎn)或在于其具有的“非法占有目的”,或在于集資行為的“數(shù)額較大”及使用“詐騙方法”。集資詐騙共同犯罪中主從犯的認(rèn)定依各共同犯罪行為人于共同犯罪中所處地位及所起作用區(qū)分。集資詐騙罪的法條競合及想象競合的共同點(diǎn)皆為行為人只實(shí)施了一個(gè)行為,因法條的錯(cuò)綜規(guī)定而同時(shí)觸犯多個(gè)條文的則為法條競合、因任一罪名均無法完整的評(píng)價(jià)該行為的則為想象競合,實(shí)務(wù)中集資詐騙罪的法條競合與想象競合應(yīng)結(jié)合具體案例,綜合多種情況來分析認(rèn)定,使犯罪行為與最終所獲刑罰相適應(yīng)。集資詐騙罪于刑法的第192條被規(guī)定為“以非法占有為目的,使用詐騙方法非法集資,數(shù)額較大的”,筆者認(rèn)為,本罪為集資詐騙罪而非詐騙集資罪,該條文的著重點(diǎn)為使用詐騙方法來集資(即重點(diǎn)在于集資),這便與欺詐發(fā)行股票、債券罪相混淆,而集資詐騙罪在刑法分論中歸屬于破壞社會(huì)主義市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)秩序項(xiàng)下的金融詐騙類型犯罪,即立法者意圖保護(hù)受其“詐騙”方法破壞的本應(yīng)遵循“誠信”的市場(chǎng)秩序,因此本罪著重點(diǎn)應(yīng)為使用非法集資方法而進(jìn)行的“詐騙”,故筆者建議該條文可修改為“以非法占有為目的,使用非法集資方法進(jìn)行詐騙”方能夠使該罪的罪名罪狀相吻合。為避免“數(shù)額較大”成為集資詐騙罪入罪的唯一條件,筆者建議加入“情節(jié)嚴(yán)重”作為選擇性條件。再者其單位犯罪主體的刑罰建議增加資格刑或注銷刑,與刑法修正案九所增加的“從業(yè)禁止”制度相契合,以便起到更好的特殊性預(yù)防作用。
[Abstract]:For the crime of fund-raising fraud, the illegal fund-raising act in its constituent elements has the nature of administrative offense, because of the purpose of using fraud method to illegally occupy the other party's property, it has the nature of fraud and is essentially a natural crime.Therefore, the financing of fraud in the world's laws are criminalized, in particular, only a single crime, or the inclusion of ordinary fraud or other crimes, different countries.Both the crime of fraud and the crime of contract fraud are stipulated in the criminal law of our country. The establishment of the crime of fraud of raising funds should be strictly explained, even if it does not constitute the crime of fraud of raising funds, there are also the crime of fraud and the crime of contract fraud to be regulated.The main content of this paper is to identify the crime of fund-raising fraud and put forward legislative suggestions. In its constituent elements, "the purpose of illegal possession" refers to the ownership of the property of another person which the perpetrator wishes to possess illegally under the direct and intentional psychological domination."using fraud method" should be understood in a broad sense, that is, any person who, based on his own voluntary and intentional "statement", "promise" and "behavior", makes the other party fall into a wrong understanding and deliver the property can be recognized;For the calculation of "large amount", except for the more than 100000 individual funds and 500000 or more units raised in the judicial interpretation, the author agrees to calculate the direct loss of the victim and deduct the part returned by the perpetrator; the crime of fund-raising fraud and the loan dispute,The fundamental distinction between generalized fund-raising disputes and the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public, the crime of fraud, the crime of fraudulent issuance of stocks, the crime of bonds, etc., or the fundamental distinction between such acts as raising funds or defrauding, or their "illegal purpose of possession",Or in the raising of funds in the "larger amount" and the use of "fraud methods."The identification of the principal and subordinate in the joint crime of financing fraud is distinguished according to the position and function of the joint perpetrator in the joint crime.The common denominator of the articles of law and imaginative concurrence of the crime of financing fraud is that the perpetrator only carried out one act, and because of the complicated provisions of the law, those who have violated many articles at the same time are in line with each other.Because of any crime can not be fully evaluated for the behavior of imagination competing, in practice of the crime of fund-raising fraud and imaginative competition should be combined with specific cases, comprehensive analysis of a variety of circumstances to determine,To adapt the crime to the final punishment.The crime of raising funds for fraud is stipulated in Article 192 of the Criminal Law as "for the purpose of illegal possession, using the method of fraud to raise funds illegally, in large amounts". The author believes that this crime is a crime of raising funds for fraud rather than swindling.The emphasis of this provision is on the use of fraud to raise funds (that is, the focus is on raising funds, which is confused with the offence of fraudulent issuance of stocks and bonds,The crime of financing fraud belongs to the type of crime of financial fraud under the item of destroying the order of socialist market economy in the division of criminal law, that is, the legislator intends to protect the market order which should follow "good faith" which is destroyed by his method of "fraud".Therefore, the focus of this crime should be the "fraud" carried out by using the illegal method of raising funds, so the author suggests that the article can be amended as "to use the illegal method of raising funds for the purpose of defrauding" in order to make the charge of the crime consistent.In order to avoid "large amount" becoming the only condition for the crime of fraud by raising funds, the author suggests adding "serious circumstances" as a selective condition.Moreover, the penalty of the subject of unit crime should increase the penalty of qualification or cancellation, which coincides with the system of "prohibition of employment" added in the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law, so as to play a better role in the prevention of particularity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：四川師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3;D920.5

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 石奎;陳鳳玲;;集資詐騙罪“非法占有目的”的司法認(rèn)定——基于樣本的抽樣統(tǒng)計(jì)分析[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2016年04期

2 蔡道通;;特別法條優(yōu)于普通法條適用——以金融詐騙罪行為類型的意義為分析視角[J];法學(xué)家;2015年05期

3 胡啟忠;;集資詐騙罪“非法占有”目的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的局限與完善[J];法治研究;2015年05期

4 趙秉志;徐文文;;民營企業(yè)家集資詐騙罪:問題與思考[J];法學(xué)雜志;2014年12期

5 姚萬勤;;集資詐騙罪中“非法占有目的”的理論回歸——以吳英案為例的探討[J];四川師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年01期

6 田坤;;集資詐騙罪中“社會(huì)公眾”標(biāo)準(zhǔn)探析[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年05期

7 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

8 葉良芳;;從吳英案看集資詐騙罪的司法認(rèn)定[J];法學(xué);2012年03期

9 李艷;;集資詐騙罪的法律問題研究[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)與科技論壇;2012年03期

10 樂紹光;曹曉靜;鄧楚開;;非法集資類犯罪案件法律適用問題探討[J];人民檢察;2008年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉遠(yuǎn);金融詐騙罪研究[D];中國人民大學(xué);1999年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張蓉蓉;集資詐騙罪的司法認(rèn)定[D];中央民族大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1730294