【摘要】：近年來(lái)，我國(guó)非法集資案件頻發(fā)。由于非法集資具有涉及范圍廣、人數(shù)多、損失大等特點(diǎn)，且極易對(duì)社會(huì)造成嚴(yán)重的負(fù)面影響。國(guó)家對(duì)非法集資采取了嚴(yán)格監(jiān)管的態(tài)勢(shì)。目前，我國(guó)對(duì)于非法集資的規(guī)制散見(jiàn)于民法、行政法與刑法，其中刑法規(guī)制較多且最為嚴(yán)格。但是實(shí)踐效果卻不盡如人意。一方面集資案件依然層出不窮，且犯罪規(guī)模、數(shù)額等日漸擴(kuò)大；另一方面，現(xiàn)行刑法的規(guī)制路徑存在諸多不足，遭遇法律適用和社會(huì)效果雙重困境。 本文以法律為基礎(chǔ)，以案件為切入點(diǎn)，采用規(guī)范分析、比較分析、實(shí)證研究等方法，對(duì)非法集資的刑法規(guī)制展開研究，文章共分為四部分。 第一部分主要梳理了集資領(lǐng)域的大案要案以及相關(guān)法律法規(guī)，總結(jié)刑法規(guī)制的路徑以及特點(diǎn)。為維護(hù)金融管理秩序，刑法采取了積極介入的態(tài)勢(shì)，制裁較為嚴(yán)厲，而行政規(guī)制適用受限，并未能有效發(fā)揮前置性作用。 第二部分闡述了現(xiàn)行規(guī)制路徑所帶來(lái)的法律適用、社會(huì)效果困境。從法律適用上來(lái)看，非法集資與民間借貸的界限不清晰，以間接融資手段處理直接融資問(wèn)題，“非法占有目的”的認(rèn)定存在擴(kuò)大化傾向，“定性+定量”的規(guī)定模式使得實(shí)務(wù)部門出現(xiàn)了“犯罪數(shù)額至上”的極端做法。從社會(huì)效果看，集資案件的遏制效果有限，且涉案資產(chǎn)的處置模式備受爭(zhēng)議，引發(fā)了一定的負(fù)面效應(yīng)。 第三部分主要從金融理念，民事與行政規(guī)制角度展開，，倡導(dǎo)建立包容、開放的金融監(jiān)管制度，通過(guò)立法以及降低金融機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，為合法民間融資預(yù)留空間。同時(shí)建立統(tǒng)一的行政監(jiān)管機(jī)制，對(duì)集資行為進(jìn)行監(jiān)管，另外在案件處理中還要維護(hù)投資者的利益。 第四部分主要從刑法角度，首先對(duì)集資行為的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行界定，再結(jié)合司法實(shí)踐，對(duì)“非法占有目的”的認(rèn)定進(jìn)行具體分析，防止在司法實(shí)踐中過(guò)度推定。最后，從刑罰輕緩化角度，倡導(dǎo)限制死刑的適用，結(jié)合犯罪特點(diǎn)建議擴(kuò)大罰金刑，增加資格刑的適用。
[Abstract]:In recent years, illegal fund-raising cases occur frequently in China. Due to the characteristics of wide range, large number of people and large losses, illegal fund-raising is easy to cause serious negative impact on society. The state has adopted a situation of strict supervision over illegal fund-raising. At present, the regulation of illegal financing is scattered in civil law, administrative law and criminal law, among which criminal law is more and more strict. But the practical effect is not satisfactory. On the one hand, the cases of raising funds are still emerging in endlessly, and the scale and amount of the crime are expanding day by day. On the other hand, there are many deficiencies in the regulation path of the current criminal law, which is confronted with the double dilemma of the application of the law and the social effect. This article is based on the law, taking the case as the breakthrough point, adopts the normative analysis, the comparative analysis, the demonstration research and so on, carries on the research to the criminal law regulation of the illegal fund-raising, the article is divided into four parts altogether. The first part mainly combs the major cases and related laws and regulations in the field of fund-raising, summarizes the path and characteristics of criminal law regulation. In order to maintain the financial management order, the criminal law has taken the active intervention situation, the sanction is more severe, but the administrative regulation is limited, and can not play the leading role effectively. The second part expounds the legal application and social effect dilemma brought by the current regulation path. As far as the law is concerned, the boundary between illegal financing and private borrowing is not clear, and indirect financing means are used to deal with the direct financing problem. The determination of "illegal possession purpose" has a tendency to expand. The prescriptive mode of "qualitative and quantitative" makes the extreme practice of "crime is supreme" in practical departments. From the point of view of social effect, the containment effect of fund-raising cases is limited, and the disposal mode of assets involved is controversial, which leads to certain negative effects. The third part is mainly from the perspective of financial concept, civil and administrative regulation, advocating the establishment of inclusive, open financial regulatory system, through legislation and lowering the financial institutions set standards, reserved space for legal private financing. At the same time, we should establish a unified administrative supervision mechanism, supervise the raising of funds, and safeguard the interests of investors in the handling of cases. The fourth part mainly from the criminal law angle, first carries on the definition to the fund raising behavior nature, then unifies the judicial practice, carries on the concrete analysis to the "illegal possession purpose" the confirmation, prevents in the judicial practice excessive presumption. Finally, from the point of view of penalty mitigation, the author advocates restricting the application of the death penalty, and proposes to expand the fine penalty and increase the application of the qualification penalty according to the characteristics of the crime.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(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 秦偉;;民間集資行為的法律規(guī)制與權(quán)益分配[J];重慶社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年05期

2 劉憲權(quán);;刑法嚴(yán)懲非法集資行為之反思[J];法商研究;2012年04期

3 劉燕;;發(fā)現(xiàn)金融監(jiān)管的制度邏輯——對(duì)孫大午案件的一個(gè)點(diǎn)評(píng)[J];法學(xué)家;2004年03期

4 邢會(huì)強(qiáng);;金融危機(jī)治亂循環(huán)與金融法的改進(jìn)路徑——金融法中“三足定理”的提出[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年05期

5 謝望原;張開駿;;非法吸收公眾存款罪疑難問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2011年06期

6 馮果;;金融法的“三足定理”及中國(guó)金融法制的變革[J];法學(xué);2011年09期

7 侯婉穎;;集資詐騙罪中非法占有目的的司法偏執(zhí)[J];法學(xué);2012年03期

8 李有星;楊俊;羅栩;;民間融資法律責(zé)任之完善[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2011年05期

9 李勛文;;金融危機(jī)背景下如何處理民間融資與非法集資的界限[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年22期

10 孫開鋒;;非法集資犯罪調(diào)查[J];公安研究;2010年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉鑫;論民間融資的刑法規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：2165771