本文選題：公款 + 惡性揮霍　； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：公款惡性揮霍不僅僅是一個(gè)道德問題，更是一個(gè)法律問題：它侵害了國(guó)家工作人員職務(wù)行為的廉潔性，激化了社會(huì)矛盾，并且具有較大的社會(huì)危害性。公款吃喝、公款旅游、超標(biāo)公車消費(fèi)等一系列公款惡性揮霍行為都應(yīng)當(dāng)加以抑制。不論是個(gè)體的公款惡性揮霍行為，還是群體的公款惡性揮霍行為，均易引發(fā)進(jìn)一步的挪用型、侵吞型、瀆職型犯罪。目前刑法上有個(gè)別條款可以適用于調(diào)整公款惡性揮霍的問題，但是仍有部分公款惡性揮霍行為無法受到刑法規(guī)范的調(diào)整，此外理論上亦缺乏對(duì)公款惡性揮霍問題的系統(tǒng)性研究�；诖耍斜匾獙�(duì)公款惡性揮霍問題作系統(tǒng)分析，進(jìn)而提出相應(yīng)立法建議，完善現(xiàn)有法律條文，以期構(gòu)建一個(gè)有效全面的規(guī)制體系。 全文除引言外，共分為五個(gè)部分： 第一部分，公款惡性揮霍的基本問題。公款惡性揮霍，，是指出于個(gè)人目的，揮霍公款，數(shù)額較大，情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的行為。公款惡性揮霍可能表現(xiàn)為多種行為方式，其產(chǎn)生與發(fā)展，有著一定的歷史原因、社會(huì)原因。 第二部分，考察公款惡性揮霍法律處置的現(xiàn)狀。部分公款惡性揮霍行為確實(shí)可以納入到現(xiàn)行立法之中，亦已有相關(guān)司法案例，主要集中體現(xiàn)在侵吞型犯罪、挪用型犯罪、瀆職型犯罪三類。但為數(shù)眾多的公款浪費(fèi)行為，卻依然只能依靠一些非刑法手段來調(diào)整，如行政法律、紀(jì)律處分規(guī)定、黨內(nèi)法規(guī)中規(guī)定的措施。對(duì)于如何處理公款惡性揮霍，目前有兩種聲音：一種是強(qiáng)調(diào)現(xiàn)行立法已經(jīng)可以實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)公款惡性揮霍的規(guī)制，如貪污罪、濫用職權(quán)罪都可以用以定罪量刑；另一種則提出應(yīng)當(dāng)增加新的罪名，專門規(guī)制公款惡性揮霍行為。 第三部分，進(jìn)一步論證公款惡性揮霍刑法規(guī)制的必要性、可行性以及可能后果。從對(duì)法律處置的具體考察來看，以上兩種聲音都有不足之處，而建立在這兩種意見基礎(chǔ)上的折衷意見，可能更加妥當(dāng)：一方面，完善現(xiàn)行立法中有關(guān)公款惡性揮霍的規(guī)定；另一方面，增加立法，以調(diào)整目前尚無規(guī)制的，社會(huì)危害性較大的公款浪費(fèi)行為。采取這種折衷意見是刑法補(bǔ)位的需要，是反腐倡廉的需要，是實(shí)現(xiàn)罪刑法定的需要，是實(shí)現(xiàn)罪刑相適應(yīng)的需要；而在可行性上，也具備了歷史傳統(tǒng)與現(xiàn)實(shí)條件。當(dāng)然，這種折衷的做法也可能帶來不良后果，但可以解決。 第四部分，完善現(xiàn)行立法中有關(guān)公款惡性揮霍的規(guī)定。通過考察公款惡性揮霍的不同表現(xiàn)形式，將其與現(xiàn)行刑法相關(guān)罪名進(jìn)行融合，進(jìn)而出臺(tái)立法或司法解釋，將所涉及的惡性揮霍公款行為，明確列入侵吞、挪用、瀆職等犯罪的犯罪行為中。 第五部分，獨(dú)立設(shè)置公款浪費(fèi)罪。主要規(guī)制那些無法納入到現(xiàn)行立法中的公款浪費(fèi)行為。但基于罪刑法定和刑法謙抑性的要求，必須審慎考慮能否設(shè)置公款浪費(fèi)罪，在討論是否必要的基礎(chǔ)上，提出具體的意見。
[Abstract]:The vicious profligacy of public funds is not only a moral issue, but also a legal problem: it infringes on the honesty of the official behavior of the state functionary, intensifies the social contradiction, and has great social harmfulness. A series of excruciating public spending, such as public spending, travel and overspending, should be curbed. Both the individual and the group of public funds are prone to cause further misappropriation, embezzlement and dereliction of duty. At present, there are some articles in criminal law which can be applied to adjust the problem of public funds profligacy, but some of them can not be adjusted by the criminal law norm. In addition, there is a lack of systematic research on the problem of public funds profligacy in theory. Based on this, it is necessary to make a systematic analysis of the problem of vicious profligacy of public funds, and then put forward corresponding legislative suggestions, improve the existing legal provisions, in order to build an effective and comprehensive regulatory system. In addition to the introduction, the full text is divided into five parts: The first part, the basic problem of public funds profligacy. Public funds profligate, refers to for personal purposes, profligate public funds, larger, serious circumstances. Public money profligacy may be manifested in many kinds of behavior, its emergence and development have some historical and social reasons. The second part is to investigate the current situation of the legal treatment of public funds profligacy. Some of the vicious profligacy of public funds can indeed be brought into the current legislation, and there have been related judicial cases, mainly reflected in the embezzlement type crime, misappropriation type crime, dereliction of duty type crime three types. However, a large number of wasteful acts of public funds can only be adjusted by some non-criminal means, such as administrative laws, disciplinary provisions, and measures stipulated in the Party's laws and regulations. There are two kinds of voices on how to deal with the vicious profligacy of public funds: one is to emphasize that the existing legislation can already realize the regulation of the vicious profligacy of public funds, such as the crime of corruption, the crime of abuse of power can be used to convict and sentence; The other suggests that new charges should be added to regulate the vicious profligacy of public funds. The third part further demonstrates the necessity, feasibility and possible consequences of the criminal regulation of public funds profligacy. From the concrete inspection of the legal treatment, the above two kinds of voices have their shortcomings, and the compromise based on these two opinions may be more appropriate: on the one hand, perfect the provisions of the current legislation on the vicious profligacy of public funds; On the other hand, legislation should be added to adjust the unregulated and socially harmful waste of public funds. This kind of compromise is the need of complement of criminal law, the need of combating corruption and advocating clean government, the need of realizing legally prescribed punishment for a crime, the need of adapting crime to punishment, and the possibility of having historical tradition and realistic conditions. Of course, such a compromise may also have adverse consequences, but it can be resolved. The fourth part, consummates the present legislation regarding the public fund profligate stipulation. By investigating the different forms of public funds profligacy, merging it with the relevant crimes of the current criminal law, and then introducing legislation or judicial interpretation, including the malicious profligate public funds involved, it is clearly included in the embezzlement and misappropriation. The crime of dereliction of duty. The fifth part, set up the crime of wasting public funds independently. The main regulation of those can not be incorporated into the current legislation of public money waste behavior. However, due to the requirement of punishment for crimes and modesty of criminal law, we must carefully consider whether the crime of waste of public funds can be set up, and put forward concrete opinions on the basis of discussing whether it is necessary or not.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孟慶平;;我國(guó)職務(wù)消費(fèi)制度的溯源、現(xiàn)狀與完善對(duì)策[J];財(cái)貿(mào)經(jīng)濟(jì);2009年12期

2 梁麗芝;韋朝毅;盧丹鳳;;奢侈型行政文化的成因及對(duì)策[J];黨政干部學(xué)刊;2009年12期

3 張明楷;論刑法的謙抑性[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1995年04期

4 周光權(quán);;論社會(huì)整合與刑事政策[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年01期

5 葉良芳;;危險(xiǎn)駕駛罪的立法證成和規(guī)范構(gòu)造[J];法學(xué);2011年02期

6 陳衛(wèi)東,石獻(xiàn)智;刑事政策在刑事司法中的地位和作用[J];江海學(xué)刊;2002年05期

7 賈學(xué)勝;對(duì)公務(wù)員出境賭博的刑法規(guī)制[J];江西公安�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2005年02期

8 朱光磊;盛林;;過程防腐:制度反腐向更深層次推進(jìn)的重要途徑[J];南開學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

9 梁麗芝;韋朝毅;;地方政府奢侈行政現(xiàn)象探析[J];理論探討;2010年06期

10 張紹謙;;我國(guó)職務(wù)犯罪刑事政策的新思考[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2013年04期

本文編號(hào)：1867236