本文選題：風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì) + 民間借貸�。� 參考：《天津商業(yè)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”概指當(dāng)今世界正在從傳統(tǒng)的工業(yè)社會(huì)形態(tài)轉(zhuǎn)向一個(gè)后工業(yè)社會(huì)形態(tài)或一個(gè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)形態(tài)。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)并非政治討論過程中可以被接受或拒絕的一種抉擇,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)已經(jīng)來到,必須重視。我們無法否認(rèn),當(dāng)前,我國社會(huì)存在著大量的發(fā)展性社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。對(duì)此,刑法應(yīng)當(dāng)作出系統(tǒng)性的回應(yīng)。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的變異性在網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸中一方面提高了資金使用率,激活了實(shí)體經(jīng)濟(jì),緩解中小企業(yè)融資難的問題,增加了人們手中的可支配資金;另一方面風(fēng)險(xiǎn)也在異化網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸活動(dòng),使其潛在的犯罪性“日漸膨脹”。梳理規(guī)范借貸行為的法律法規(guī),探究風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)背景下法律規(guī)范對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)規(guī)制的立法趨向,現(xiàn)有刑法典中可以規(guī)制借貸犯罪的罪名共有11個(gè)罪名。在金融風(fēng)險(xiǎn)越益彰顯的當(dāng)今社會(huì),利用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的金融交易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)顯化出“防控不能”的特性。而現(xiàn)有的法律體系對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸的規(guī)范很凌亂,具體到刑法規(guī)范中規(guī)制網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸的條款主要落腳于刑法第三章第四節(jié)破壞金融管理秩序罪之中。刑法謙抑性所體現(xiàn)的最后手段性與罪刑法定原則所要求的“明文規(guī)定”要求刑法在網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸中保持應(yīng)有的克制,但這并不意味著刑法在網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪中不能為而是“有所為,有所不為”。針對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪的特點(diǎn)刑法有兩種選擇路徑:一是以刑法第174條、第176條、第225條規(guī)定的罪名規(guī)制“常態(tài)”的網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪,主要是“無資質(zhì)主體經(jīng)營從事網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸活動(dòng)的犯罪行為”和“超越平臺(tái)經(jīng)營權(quán)限(服務(wù)范圍)的犯罪行為”;二是以刑法第192條、第222條、第224條規(guī)制“變態(tài)”的網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪,主要是“非法集資行為”。在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)中刑法對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪在上述兩種選擇中可以發(fā)揮打擊犯罪的效能,但此種規(guī)制方式是對(duì)民間借貸刑法規(guī)制的借用,并不能精致、精確的打擊網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪。風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)對(duì)刑法提出的新要求便是“刑法觸端前移”,在網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪的規(guī)制中刑法應(yīng)當(dāng)重視主觀要素,刑法理論上應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)為故意不只是罪責(zé)要素而同時(shí)也是不法要素;應(yīng)以推定的方式認(rèn)定非法占有為目的,并探索在網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪中設(shè)立過失犯罪。刑罰也應(yīng)作出適當(dāng)修改:將“職業(yè)禁止”條款的規(guī)定變更為“資格刑”,使其附加在刑法第34條之中,作為一種附加刑;并將“剝奪政治權(quán)利”“驅(qū)逐出境”和“禁止令”納入其中。統(tǒng)一罰金刑的適用,采用倍比罰金刑,單位犯罪中“直接負(fù)責(zé)的主管人員和其他直接責(zé)任人員”應(yīng)當(dāng)適用與自然人犯罪時(shí)同等的刑罰,并且對(duì)單位犯罪的罰金刑應(yīng)當(dāng)規(guī)定合理的法定刑幅度。
[Abstract]:"risk society" means that the world is changing from the traditional industrial society to a post-industrial society or a risk society. Risk society is not a choice that can be accepted or rejected in the process of political discussion. We cannot deny that there are a lot of developmental social risks in our society at present. To this, criminal law should make systematic response. On the one hand, the variability of risk increases the utilization rate of funds, activates the real economy, alleviates the problem of financing difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises, and increases the disposable funds in the hands of people. On the other hand, the risk is also dissimilating the network lending activities. Make its latent criminal character "day by day bulge". Combing the laws and regulations of regulating lending behavior and exploring the legislative trend of risk regulation under the background of risk society, the existing criminal law can regulate the crime of lending a total of 11 charges. In today's society where financial risks are becoming more and more obvious, the characteristics of "prevention and control" can be manifested by using the financial transaction risks of the Internet. The existing legal system is very messy to the norms of network lending, specifically to the provisions of the criminal law norms to regulate network lending, mainly in the third chapter of the Criminal Law, section IV of the crime of undermining the financial management order in the criminal law. The last means embodied in the modesty of the criminal law and the "express provisions" required by the principle of legality require the criminal law to exercise due restraint in the network lending, but this does not mean that the criminal law cannot do anything in the crime of network borrowing. " In view of the characteristics of network lending crime, there are two kinds of alternative ways in criminal law: one is to regulate the "normal" network lending crime with the charges stipulated in articles 174, 176 and 225 of the Criminal Law. They are mainly "criminal acts of engaging in network lending activities by unqualified subjects" and "crimes beyond the scope of the operation of the platform (scope of services)"; second, articles 192, 222 of the Criminal Code, Article 224 regulates "abnormal" network lending crime, mainly "illegal fund-raising behavior". In the risk society, the criminal law can play the role of cracking down on the crime in the above two choices, but this kind of regulation is the borrowing of the criminal law regulation of folk lending, and it is not exquisite and accurate to crack down on the network borrowing crime. The new request of risk society to criminal law is "criminal law touch forward". In the regulation of network loan crime, criminal law should attach importance to subjective elements. In theory, criminal law should think that intention is not only the element of criminal responsibility but also the element of illegality. The purpose of illegal possession should be presumed, and the establishment of negligent crime in the crime of network borrowing should be explored. The penalty should also be amended as follows: the provision of "occupational prohibition" should be changed to "qualification penalty" so that it can be added to article 34 of the Criminal Code as an additional punishment; It also includes "deprivation of political rights", "deportation" and "prohibition order". The application of the unified fine penalty shall be equal to that of the natural person in the case of "directly responsible persons in charge and other persons directly responsible" in the case of unit crime. And the fine for unit crime shall be prescribed a reasonable legal penalty range.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津商業(yè)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

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 劉權(quán);;P2P網(wǎng)絡(luò)借貸犯罪及其刑法治理研究[J];中國人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年06期

2 陳興良;;風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法理論的法教義學(xué)批判[J];中外法學(xué);2014年01期

3 劉媛媛;;刑法的理論轉(zhuǎn)型:從傳統(tǒng)刑法到風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)中的刑法[J];河南師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期

4 張明楷;;“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會(huì)”若干刑法理論問題反思[J];法商研究;2011年05期

5 劉媛媛;;刑法謙抑性及其邊界[J];理論探索;2011年05期

6 于志剛;;“風(fēng)險(xiǎn)刑法”不可行[J];法商研究;2011年04期

7 龍宗智;;推定的界限及適用[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年01期

8 裴蒼齡;;再論推定[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1830952