本文選題：合同效力 + 非法吸收公眾存款罪　； 參考：《浙江大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：近年來,民間借貸涉嫌非法吸收公眾存款被公安機關(guān)立案偵查的案件頻發(fā),且涉案金額大、涉及群眾范圍廣,這一系列案件應(yīng)當(dāng)如何處理成了司法實踐中相當(dāng)棘手又亟待解決的問題。債務(wù)人在構(gòu)成非法吸收公眾存款罪后,其與債權(quán)人簽訂的借款合同效力認定問題成為目前司法審判實務(wù)中的一個難點。 在目前的審判實務(wù)和學(xué)說中,認為合同無效或是合同有效的兩種觀點兼而有之,本文試圖從民間借貸和非法吸收公眾存款罪的刑民交叉部分入手,從保護債權(quán)人的角度,重點探討涉及的借款合同和相關(guān)的擔(dān)保合同效力。通過對審判現(xiàn)狀和學(xué)界觀點的探討,區(qū)分不同處理模式的內(nèi)涵,同時根據(jù)最高院公報案例所展現(xiàn)的意義,來思考何種判斷更具有合理性。 對作為主合同的借款合同而言,首先,評價犯罪行為和合同行為的模式存在較大差別,刑事犯罪行為和民事行為是分別由刑法和民法兩個不同的法律體系加以調(diào)整,不可輕易混為一談；其次,是否對效力性強制性規(guī)范構(gòu)成違反關(guān)鍵在于對相關(guān)條文的性質(zhì)判斷問題,探討民間借貸是否違反刑法,本質(zhì)上其實是對于該行為是否違反商業(yè)銀行法、從事相關(guān)業(yè)務(wù)的探究；另外,貿(mào)然將借款合同認定為無效,在當(dāng)事人利益以及交易安全的保護方面,或許會帶來更為不利的后果,對于相關(guān)的擔(dān)保合同效力也是一樣,因此,民間借貸涉嫌或構(gòu)成非法吸收公眾存款罪,合同一方當(dāng)事人可能被追究刑事責(zé)任的,并不當(dāng)然影響民間借貸以及相對應(yīng)的擔(dān)保合同的效力。 在此基礎(chǔ)上,本文也對現(xiàn)有的非法吸收公眾存款罪涉及合同效力的審判模式進行反思,盲目進行“先刑后民”的堅持,會給借貸合同的效力認定帶來較多問題,應(yīng)合理根據(jù)案件類型區(qū)別審理。
[Abstract]:In recent years, cases involving private loans suspected of illegally absorbing deposits from the public are frequently recorded and investigated by the public security organs, and the amount involved is large and involves a wide range of people. How to deal with this series of cases has become a thorny and urgent problem in judicial practice. After the debtor constitutes the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, the validity of the loan contract signed between the debtor and the creditor has become a difficult point in the judicial practice at present. In the current trial practice and doctrine, there are two points of view that the contract is invalid or valid. This paper tries to start with the criminal and civil intersection part of the crime of private borrowing and illegally absorbing public deposits, and from the angle of protecting creditors. This paper mainly discusses the validity of the loan contract and the relevant guarantee contract. Through the discussion of the current situation of the trial and the viewpoints of the academic circles, this paper distinguishes the connotations of different processing modes, and at the same time, according to the significance of the case of the Supreme Court Bulletin, considers which judgment is more reasonable. For the loan contract as the main contract, first of all, there are great differences in the mode of evaluating the criminal act and the contract behavior. The criminal act and the civil act are respectively adjusted by the two different legal systems of criminal law and civil law. Second, whether the validity of peremptory norms constitutes a violation of the key lies in the relevant provisions of the nature of the judgment, to explore whether private lending is in violation of the criminal law, In essence, it is an inquiry into whether the act violates the Commercial Bank Law and engages in related business. In addition, it hastily regards the loan contract as null and void, in terms of the protection of the interests of the parties and the security of the transaction. It may have even more adverse consequences, and the same applies to the effectiveness of the relevant security contract. Therefore, if a private loan is suspected of or constitutes an illegal crime of taking deposits from the public, a party to the contract may be held criminally liable. It does not, of course, affect the effectiveness of private lending and the corresponding guarantee contracts. On this basis, this paper also reflects on the existing trial mode of illegal public deposit crime involving the validity of the contract. Blindly carrying out the insistence of "first punishment before the people" will bring more problems to the validity of the loan contract. Should be reasonable according to the type of case trial.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3;D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉燕;;發(fā)現(xiàn)金融監(jiān)管的制度邏輯——對孫大午案件的一個點評[J];法學(xué)家;2004年03期

2 賈邦俊;劉陽;;非法吸收公眾存款罪下借款合同效力探析[J];西部法學(xué)評論;2013年01期

3 鄭景元;;論《合同法》中的公共利益——以合同無效事由為視角[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年07期

4 崔永峰;李紅;;非法吸收公眾存款犯罪中民間借貸合同效力之認定[J];中國檢察官;2012年02期

5 鄔定伸;;非法吸收公眾存款罪中民間借貸合同效力之探究[J];中國檢察官;2012年24期

6 沈芳君;;構(gòu)成非法吸收公眾存款罪的民間借貸及其擔(dān)保合同效力[J];人民司法;2010年22期

7 程宏;;刑民交叉案件中合同效力的認定[J];學(xué)術(shù)探索;2010年02期

8 張珩;;非法吸收公眾存款罪的難點問題[J];中國刑事法雜志;2010年12期

9 胡東遷;陳士松;;非法集資案件中擔(dān)保合同的效力及各方權(quán)益保護[J];中國律師;2013年09期

10 李全鎖;王學(xué)軍;;涉嫌非法吸收公眾存款犯罪的民間借貸案件訴訟模式初探[J];中國審判;2013年04期

，

本文編號：1803311