【摘要】：由于我國(guó)金融業(yè)發(fā)展變化迅速,制度管理、經(jīng)營(yíng)方式等出現(xiàn)了多樣化和綜合性的發(fā)展態(tài)勢(shì),新情況、新問(wèn)題不斷出現(xiàn),自刑法增設(shè)高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪來(lái),圍繞該罪在犯罪構(gòu)成方面的爭(zhēng)議一直存在,目前,在司法實(shí)踐中,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸案件時(shí)有發(fā)生,但對(duì)這一罪的理論探討很少。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中“高利”的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中“套取信貸資金”的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,行為人轉(zhuǎn)貸牟利的時(shí)間對(duì)高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的構(gòu)成是否有影響,利用自有資金進(jìn)行高利放貸的性質(zhì)的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題,等等。因此,有必要對(duì)對(duì)高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的相關(guān)問(wèn)題進(jìn)行深入詳細(xì)的分析。 本文除引言和結(jié)語(yǔ)外,分為三個(gè)部分： 第一部分,主要討論了高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的法律概念,客體、客觀方面、主觀方面等構(gòu)成要件和高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的犯罪形態(tài)問(wèn)題。在高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的客觀方面認(rèn)定上,“違法所得”,是指行為人高利轉(zhuǎn)貸所得的收益與其支付給銀行利息之間的差額；既包括現(xiàn)實(shí)的違法所得,也包括期待的違法所得,對(duì)于期待的違法所得的計(jì)算,應(yīng)當(dāng)以借貸雙方的實(shí)際協(xié)議為準(zhǔn)。我國(guó)信貸管理制度包括正常合法取得貸款和按照約定使用貸款的行為。因此,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中的套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)信貸資金中的“套取”行為,是指行為人違反了合法取得貸款或違反了依約定使用貸款,只要具備二之一,即構(gòu)成“套取”。判斷“套取”的核心在于行為人對(duì)貸款的實(shí)際用途是否符合其貸款時(shí)所約定的使用目的,只要不符合約定的使用目的,即屬于“套取”行為。對(duì)高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中“高利”的判斷,應(yīng)從文義解釋的角度出發(fā),只要行為人轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人的利率高于其本人從金融信貸機(jī)構(gòu)“套取”貸款的利率,有牟利的空間,即可以認(rèn)定為“高利”。在高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的主觀方面認(rèn)定上,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪在主觀認(rèn)識(shí)上,要求是故意,且屬于直接故意,行為人的過(guò)失或間接故意均不構(gòu)成本罪。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中的故意應(yīng)包括故意“套取信貸資金”和故意“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸”兩部分。行為人的終極目的是牟取利益,行為人在主觀上必須要有以轉(zhuǎn)貸牟利為目的。在高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的客體認(rèn)定上,由于我國(guó)實(shí)行金融業(yè)的特許和嚴(yán)格的監(jiān)管制度,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中存在“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”、“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”等多個(gè)行為,且以牟利為目的,具體侵犯的是國(guó)家貸款發(fā)放、專用和國(guó)家利率管理制度,因此,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的客體應(yīng)為我國(guó)的信貸資金管理制度,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪侵害的客體是我國(guó)信貸資金管理制度。 第二部分主要討論高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中疑難認(rèn)定問(wèn)題。在企業(yè)將自有資金高利貸款給他人,而向銀行貸款用于自身企業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)時(shí),出現(xiàn)了企業(yè)一邊貸款,邊向他人轉(zhuǎn)貸,但向他人轉(zhuǎn)貸的資金不是向銀行的貸款的信貸資金,此種行為不能被認(rèn)定為高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪,這是罪刑法定原則的基本要求,也是刑法謙抑性的表現(xiàn)。行為人在向金融機(jī)構(gòu)貸款中,存在向金融機(jī)構(gòu)貸款過(guò)多的情形,超出了項(xiàng)目的使用數(shù)額,貸款存在一定的余額,行為人將此余額部分高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人,行為人在申請(qǐng)貸款時(shí)對(duì)項(xiàng)目所需要使用的資金數(shù)額比較清楚,其在申請(qǐng)貸款時(shí)故意向金融機(jī)構(gòu)多申請(qǐng)貸款,而又將該多出的余額高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人,以牟取利益,則對(duì)于該余額部分,行為人明顯屬于“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”,由于其實(shí)施了“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”的行為,且以牟取利益為目的,則明顯符合高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的構(gòu)成要件,應(yīng)以高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪論處。若行為人按照項(xiàng)目所需要的資金向金融機(jī)構(gòu)貸款,但后來(lái)由于市場(chǎng)變化或項(xiàng)目調(diào)整等原因,導(dǎo)致資金出現(xiàn)多余,行為人將該部分余額高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人,以牟取利益。由于行為人是根據(jù)項(xiàng)目需要向金融機(jī)構(gòu)申請(qǐng)貸款的,不存在“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”的行為,即我國(guó)信貸資金的管理秩序未到破壞,行為人當(dāng)時(shí)也不存在以牟利為目的,故不成立高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。行為人從銀行取得貸款,即獲利了對(duì)該筆資金的合法使用權(quán),即使該貸款到期,其沒(méi)有按時(shí)償還貸款,依法應(yīng)對(duì)銀行承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任,屬于民事責(zé)任的一種,這并不足以構(gòu)成高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中的“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”的行為。其次,行為人將獲得的貸款轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人,這屬于行為人對(duì)自己自有資金的使用,屬于典型的民間借貸行為,并未侵害國(guó)家對(duì)信貸資金的金融管理秩序,因此,不構(gòu)成高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。從高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的規(guī)定來(lái)看,存在“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”和“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”兩種行為,且似乎是明確了“套取行為”在前,“轉(zhuǎn)貸行為”在后的先后順序,高利轉(zhuǎn)借罪的法條規(guī)定僅是表明這兩種行為間的邏輯關(guān)系,即行為人通過(guò)“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”,以用來(lái)“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”,并非強(qiáng)調(diào)時(shí)間上的先后順序。因此,不論“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”發(fā)生在前,還是“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”發(fā)生在前,均不影響高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的認(rèn)定。好處費(fèi)的性質(zhì)直接決定了構(gòu)成何種犯罪,如果該好處費(fèi)是僅給了單位內(nèi)部的少數(shù)幫忙貸款的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)或決策者,則幫忙申請(qǐng)貸款的單位沒(méi)有獲得利益,即沒(méi)有牟利,只是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)濫用職權(quán)為他人牟利,其所得的好處費(fèi)是一種賄賂,則該幫忙貸款的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)可能構(gòu)成受賄罪或非國(guó)家工作人員受賄罪,企業(yè)不會(huì)構(gòu)成高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。但若企業(yè)在幫需要融資的企業(yè)進(jìn)行貸款中,企業(yè)收到了好處費(fèi),則企業(yè)在行為上實(shí)施了“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”和“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”的行為,且以牟利為目的,侵害了我國(guó)信貸資金的管理秩序,符合高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的構(gòu)成要件,應(yīng)認(rèn)定為高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。如果行為人是以自己的名義,申請(qǐng)貸款后再轉(zhuǎn)借給他人,從中收到好處費(fèi)或服務(wù)費(fèi)用的,則其明顯存在“套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)的信貸資金”和“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”的行為,且好處費(fèi)或服務(wù)費(fèi)即為牟取的利益,也侵害了高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的客體,構(gòu)成高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。雙方當(dāng)事人之間存在真實(shí)的交易關(guān)系,且由于行為人支付“預(yù)付款”,相對(duì)而言,其在進(jìn)行交易時(shí),會(huì)享受到相應(yīng)的折扣或優(yōu)惠,因此,對(duì)方當(dāng)事人給付貨物的價(jià)值要遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)行為人所付的“預(yù)付款”也是交易的一種體現(xiàn),其次,由于市場(chǎng)變化莫測(cè),商品的價(jià)值也在不斷變化,難以確切衡量商品的價(jià)值遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)行為人所付的“預(yù)付款”；再次,行為人進(jìn)行商業(yè)交易,獲利是其經(jīng)商的追求目標(biāo),是正當(dāng)?shù)淖非?且沒(méi)有侵害高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的法益。因此,這種情形不符合高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的構(gòu)成要件,對(duì)這種情形不宜認(rèn)定為犯罪。金融機(jī)構(gòu)的工作人員同時(shí)還構(gòu)成了挪用公款罪或挪用資金罪,即出現(xiàn)了想象競(jìng)合犯。因此,對(duì)于這種情形下,金融機(jī)構(gòu)工作人員和行為人的定性較為復(fù)雜,應(yīng)當(dāng)予以區(qū)別對(duì)待。 第三部分主要討論高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪與其他金融犯罪的區(qū)分問(wèn)題。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪與貸款詐騙罪,同屬于貸款類的犯罪,均是危害金融管理秩序的犯罪行為,二者存在緊密的聯(lián)系。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中的套取金融機(jī)構(gòu)信貸資金中的“套取”行為,是指行為人違反了合法取得貸款或違反了依約定使用貸款,只要具備二之一,即構(gòu)成“套取”�！霸p騙”主要是以非法占有為目的,而采取的虛構(gòu)事實(shí)等方法,使相對(duì)人陷入錯(cuò)誤認(rèn)識(shí),從而實(shí)現(xiàn)非法占有,實(shí)質(zhì)是一種“騙取”行為。因此,貸款詐騙罪中的“詐騙”和高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪中的“套取”區(qū)分十分明顯：“詐騙”是以非法占有為目的的,“套取”不以非法占有為目的,行為人有歸還的意思,僅是對(duì)貸款的用途作虛假申報(bào)或不實(shí)陳述；貸款詐騙罪的“欺騙”則不一定是對(duì)貸款的用途進(jìn)行欺騙,而是行為人為了隱瞞自己對(duì)貸款的償還能力,通過(guò)編造引進(jìn)資金和項(xiàng)目的前景、提供的虛假擔(dān)保等形式獲取貸款。此外,高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪還包括另一行為——“高利轉(zhuǎn)貸給他人”,而貸款詐騙罪卻不包含這一行為。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪與挪用資金罪,二者均是故意犯罪,均是數(shù)額犯,都是針對(duì)資金的犯罪行為,在犯罪客觀方面,均存在一定的“欺騙”、“隱瞞”行為,在犯罪主觀方面都是直接故意,均能成立犯罪的預(yù)備、中止、未遂。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪的行為可能會(huì)和挪用資金罪的行為發(fā)生重疊。金融機(jī)構(gòu)的工作人員挪用本單位的資金,高利轉(zhuǎn)借給他人使用,其實(shí)是本單位的工作人員挪用單位資金后,再借給他人使用,不存在套取信貸資金的問(wèn)題,不構(gòu)成高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。該金融機(jī)構(gòu)的工作人員只能構(gòu)成挪用資金罪或挪用公款罪。高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪和騙取貸款罪存在一些共同點(diǎn),如二者有相同的犯罪主體；在客體上都侵犯了信貸資金的使用權(quán)。在司法實(shí)踐中,還存在兩罪競(jìng)合的問(wèn)題,法條競(jìng)合關(guān)系出現(xiàn)最多的是特別法與普通法、重法與輕法的競(jìng)合。我國(guó)法律規(guī)定處理法條競(jìng)合的一般原則是特別法優(yōu)于普通法,重法優(yōu)于輕法。從法條來(lái)看,自然人為主體的騙取貸款罪與高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪所處的刑罰輕重程度大體相等,而單位犯罪中對(duì)相關(guān)自然人的處罰力度前者比后者重。從重法優(yōu)于輕法的處理原則出發(fā)似乎定騙取貸款罪較為合理。但從兩罪的犯罪構(gòu)成來(lái)看,競(jìng)合的情況下高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪被騙取貸款罪所包容,此時(shí)二者之間形成普通法和特別法的關(guān)系,可將高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪作為騙取貸款罪中的特殊情形,依特別法優(yōu)先于普通法的原則應(yīng)當(dāng)定高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪。于是出現(xiàn)了兩個(gè)處理原則適用時(shí)的取舍問(wèn)題。筆者認(rèn)為,此種情況下,采取折中的辦法,從實(shí)務(wù)操作的角度出發(fā)可以根據(jù)不同情況適用不同的原則處理。具體來(lái)講,在犯罪主體是單位的情況下依照重法優(yōu)于輕法的原則,以騙取貸款罪定罪處罰；犯罪主體是自然人的情況下依照特別法優(yōu)于普通法的原則,以高利轉(zhuǎn)貸罪定罪處罰。
[Abstract]:Because of the rapid development and change of the financial industry in China, the system management, the operation mode and so on, there are various and comprehensive development trends, the new situation, the new problems are constantly emerging, the crime of high interest transfer has been added to the criminal law, and the controversy surrounding this crime has been existing in the constitution of the crime. There are few theoretical discussions on this crime. The identification of "high profit" in the crime of transferring loan to high profit, the identification of "collecting credit funds" in the crime of high interest transfer, whether the time of the person to make a profit by the agent has an influence on the constitution of the high interest loan, and the identification of the nature of the high interest loan with its own funds, and so on. The related problems of the crime of usurious loan transfer are analyzed in detail.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into three parts:
The first part mainly discusses the legal concept, the object, the objective aspect, the subjective aspect, the subjective aspect and the crime form of the high interest transfer crime. In the objective aspect of the crime of high interest transfer, the "illegal income" refers to the difference between the profit of the high profit transfer and the interest paid to the bank. Including the actual illegal income, including the expected illegal income, the calculation of the expected illegal income should be based on the actual agreement between the borrowers and the borrowers. The credit management system of our country includes the normal legal acquisition of loans and the act of using the loan in accordance with the agreement. "Arbitrage" means that the actor violates the legitimate acquisition of a loan or violates the use of a loan according to the agreement. As long as it has one of two, it constitutes "arbitrage". The core of the "arbitrage" is to judge whether the actual use of the loan is in accordance with the intended use of the loan when the actor's actual use of the loan is in conformity with the loan, as long as it does not conform to the intended use purpose, that is, The judgment of "high profit" in the crime of transferring the loan of high interest should be judged from the angle of interpretation of the article. As long as the interest rate of the person who is transferred to others is higher than the interest rate of "arbitrage" from the financial credit institution, there is a space for profit making, that is, it can be regarded as "high profit". On the subjective understanding, the crime of transferring loans is intentional, and it belongs to the direct intention. The negligent or indirect intention of the actor does not constitute the crime. The intentional of the crime of transferring the loan of the high interest should include two parts: intentional "taking credit funds" and intentional "high interest transfer". The ultimate purpose of the actor is to gain the interests, and the actor must be subject to the subjective. For the purpose of making a profit for the transfer of loans, in the case of the object identification of the crime of transferring the loan of high interest, because of the Charter and strict regulatory system of the financial industry in our country, there are many acts such as "taking the credit funds of the financial institutions" and "transferring the loan to others" in the crime of high interest transfer, and in order to make profit for the eye, the specific infringement is the state loan, special and country. The family interest rate management system, therefore, the object of the high interest transfer crime should be the credit fund management system of our country, the object of the high interest transfer crime is our credit fund management system.
The second part mainly discusses the difficult cognizance problem in the crime of transferring loan to high profit. In the enterprise, when the enterprise makes a high profit loan of its own funds to others, while the bank loan is used for the business of its own enterprise, it appears the loan of the enterprise on one side and transfers the loan to others, but the funds transferred to others are not the credit funds to the bank. This kind of behavior cannot be identified as The crime of high interest transfer loan is the basic requirement of the principle of the legality of crime and punishment. It is also the performance of the modesty of the criminal law. In the loan to the financial institutions, the actor has too much loan to the financial institution, which exceeds the amount of the use of the project, the loan has a certain balance, the perpetrator transfers the balance part of the loan to others, and the actor is applying for a loan. The amount of funds needed for the project is relatively clear. When applying for a loan, it intends to apply for a loan to a financial institution and transfer the excess balance to others in order to gain interest. For the balance part, the actor is obviously "a credit fund for the financial institution". The act of giving to others, and in order to gain interest, is obviously in accordance with the constitutive requirements of the crime of transferring loan to high interest. It should be dealt with in the case of the crime of high interest transfer. If the perpetrator loan to the financial institution according to the funds needed by the project, but later due to the change of the market or the adjustment of the project, the fund is superfluous and the perpetrator will make the part of the balance high. As the actor applies for a loan to a financial institution according to the needs of the project, there is no act of "collecting credit funds from the financial institutions", that is, the management order of the credit funds in our country has not been destroyed, and the perpetrator does not have the purpose of making profit for the purpose of making profit. So the actor from the bank is from the bank. To obtain a loan, that is to profit the legitimate right to use the fund. Even if the loan expires, it does not pay the loan on time and is responsible for the bank to undertake the liability for breach of contract in accordance with the law. It is not enough to constitute the act of "taking credit funds for the financial institutions" in the crime of high interest transfer. Secondly, the loan will be obtained by the perpetrator. To transfer loans to others, which belongs to the use of their own funds, belongs to the typical private lending behavior, and does not infringe on the state's financial management order for credit funds. Therefore, it does not constitute a high interest transfer crime. From the provisions of the crime of transferring loans from high interest, there is a "credit fund for financial institutions" and "a high profit transfer to others" two. It seems to be a kind of behavior, which seems to be clear about the sequence of "the act of arbitrage" before, and the order of the "transfer behavior" in the post. The law clause of the crime of high interest loan is only a logical relation between the two acts, that is, the actor passes "the credit fund of the financial institution", which is used for "high profit to lend to others", not to emphasize the time successively. Therefore, it does not affect the cognizance of the crime of high interest transfer before or before the occurrence of the credit funds of the financial institutions, or the "high interest transfer to others". The nature of the benefits fee directly determines what crime is constituted, if the benefit is only given to the leadership or decision maker of a few helping loans within the unit, The unit that is busy applying for a loan does not gain profit, that is, no profit is made, only the leader will abuse his power to profit for others. The benefit fee of the income is a bribe, and the leadership of the loan may constitute a crime of bribery or non state staff bribery, and the enterprise will not constitute a crime of high interest transfer. In the loan, the enterprise received the benefit fee, and the enterprise carried out the behavior of "taking the credit funds of the financial institutions" and "transferring the loan to others" in the behavior. In order to make profit, it infringed the management order of the credit funds of our country and conformed to the constitutive requirements of the crime of high interest transfer. In the name of one's own, after applying for a loan to another person and receiving the benefits or service fees from it, it obviously has the behavior of "taking the credit funds of the financial institutions" and "transferring the loan to others", and the benefit fee or service fee is for the profit, and it also infringes the object of the crime of high interest transfer, and constitutes the crime of high interest transfer. There is a real transaction relationship between people, and because the perpetrator pays "prepayment", relative, it will enjoy the corresponding discount or discount when conducting the transaction. Therefore, the value of the party to pay the goods is far more than the "prepayment" paid by the perpetrator, which is also a manifestation of the transaction, secondly, because the market is unpredictable. The value of the commodity is constantly changing, and it is difficult to accurately measure the value of the commodity far more than the "prepayment" paid by the actor. Again, the perpetrator carries on the commercial transaction. The profit is the pursuit of its business, the legitimate pursuit, and the legal benefit of the crime of high interest transfer. Therefore, this situation does not conform to the constitutive requirements of the crime of high interest transfer. In this case, the staff of financial institutions also constitute the crime of misappropriating public funds or misappropriation of funds, that is, the imaginative concurrence committed. Therefore, in this case, the staff and the actor of the financial institutions are more complex and should be treated differently.
The third part mainly discusses the distinction between the crime of high interest transfer and other financial crimes. The crime of high interest transfer and the crime of loan fraud, which belong to the type of loan, are all crimes that harm the order of financial management, and there is a close connection between the two. For a person who violates the legitimate acquisition of a loan or violates the use of a loan according to the agreement, as long as there is one of two, it constitutes "arbitrage". The "fraud" is mainly aimed at illegal possession, and the fictitious facts are taken to make the relative people fall into the wrong understanding, thus realizing the illegal occupation, and the essence is a "fraud" act. Therefore, loan fraud is fraudulent. The distinction between "fraud" in the crime of fraud and "arbitrage" in the crime of transferring loan to high interest is very obvious: "fraud" is aimed at illegal possession, "arbitrage" is not the purpose of illegal possession, and the actor has the meaning of return. It is only a false declaration or false statement of the use of the loan; the "deception" of the crime of loan fraud is not necessarily the right one. The use of loans is deceiving, but the perpetrator in order to hide their ability to repay the loan, through the introduction of the prospect of the introduction of funds and projects, the form of false guarantee and other forms to obtain loans. In addition, the high interest transfer crime also includes another act, "high interest transfer to others", and the crime of fraud does not contain this act. The crime of transferring loan and misappropriation of funds, all of the two are intentional crimes, all are the amount offense, all are crimes against funds, in the objective aspect of the crime, there are certain "deceit", "concealment" behavior, the subjective aspects of the crime are direct intentional, all can set up a crime prepreparation, suspension, attempted crime and misappropriation The behavior of the crime of funds overlaps. The staff of the financial institution misappropriated the capital of the unit, and the high profit was borrowed to other people. In fact, after the staff of the unit misappropriated the unit funds and then lent the use of other people, it did not exist the problem of collecting credit funds and did not constitute the crime of high interest transfer. The staff of the financial institution can only be misappropriated. There are some common points in the crime of funds or misappropriation of public funds. There are some common points between the crime of transferring the loan of high interest and the crime of cheating on the loan. For example, the two parties have the same subject of the crime; the right to use the credit funds is infringed on the object. In the judicial practice, there are also the problems of the concurrence of two crimes, and the most common law competition relations are the special law and the ordinary law, the competition between the law and the light law. China's law stipulates that the general principle of concurrence in dealing with law is that special law is superior to ordinary law, and that the law is superior to light law. From the point of view of law, the degree of punishment in the crime of taking loans from natural persons for the main body is roughly equal to the degree of punishment in the crime of high interest transfer, while the former is heavier than the latter in the unit crime. According to the principle of dealing with the light law, it seems that the crime of obtaining a loan is more reasonable. But from the constitution of the two crimes, in the case of concurrence, the crime of high interest transfer is covered by the crime of cheating and borrowing, and the relationship between the ordinary law and the special law is formed between the two parties, and the crime of transferring the loan of high interest can be taken as a special case of the crime of fraud, and the priority of the special law is to give priority to the general law. In this case, the author holds that, in this case, a compromise can be taken to deal with the different principles in accordance with the different circumstances from the perspective of practical operation. Specifically, under the circumstances of the criminal subject is the unit, it is superior to the heavy law. The principle of light law is to convict the crime of fraud and punishment. The subject of the crime is the principle of the special law, which is superior to the ordinary law in the case of the natural person, and is convicted and punished with the crime of transferring the loan with high interest.
【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)】：D924.3
，

本文編號(hào)：2153174