【摘要】：所謂國(guó)家工作人員假借用他人財(cái)物不歸還行為,是指國(guó)家工作人員虛偽的(或者說是不真實(shí)的)暫時(shí)借別人的金錢、物品以及可轉(zhuǎn)移占有和可通過金錢計(jì)算價(jià)值的財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益來使用,沒有歸還給別人的行為。由于行為采用合法的“借用”形式,掩蓋了非法的目的;行為雙方以存在口頭或書面借用協(xié)議、財(cái)物未變更權(quán)屬等理由抗辯,導(dǎo)致案件調(diào)查取證困難,給辦案機(jī)關(guān)查辦此類案件和適用法律問題帶來了不少困難和疑惑。2007年7月8日,最高人民法院和最高人民檢察院發(fā)布了《關(guān)于辦理受賄刑事案件適用法律若干問題的意見》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱意見),《意見》第八條為查證國(guó)家工作人員以借為名收受他人房屋、汽車等物品屬于受賄行為,提供了法律依據(jù)。然而,在司法實(shí)踐中,借用財(cái)物的種類、方式、手段以及辯解理由多種多樣、真假難辨,《意見》第八條所列舉的判斷因素,并不能涵蓋實(shí)踐中的所在情形;其次,《意見》并沒有對(duì)借用其他財(cái)物的定性問題進(jìn)行明確,導(dǎo)致假借用財(cái)物行為在定性時(shí)仍然存在不少爭(zhēng)議。明確國(guó)家工作人員利用職務(wù)之便為他人謀利前后,假借用他人財(cái)物不歸還行為的定性,應(yīng)以辯證唯物主義為指導(dǎo),立足我國(guó)現(xiàn)有法律,對(duì)比《聯(lián)合國(guó)反腐敗公約》的規(guī)定,結(jié)合社會(huì)實(shí)情和司法實(shí)踐,以法學(xué)研究方法為工具,總結(jié)假借用行為的概念、特征以及類型,采用舉例說明的方法,對(duì)假借用財(cái)物不歸還行為可能涉及的無(wú)罪、詐騙罪、侵占罪、敲詐勒索罪、受賄罪的定性之爭(zhēng)進(jìn)行成因評(píng)析,對(duì)假借用財(cái)物不歸還行為實(shí)質(zhì)上侵害的客體、客觀方面、主體、主觀方面進(jìn)行剖析,從而證實(shí)國(guó)家工作人員假借用他人財(cái)物不歸還的行為應(yīng)屬于受賄行為。在給行為定性時(shí),首先,應(yīng)當(dāng)查清和準(zhǔn)確判斷借用行為的真“假”,應(yīng)當(dāng)透過現(xiàn)象看本質(zhì),在查清行為人的真實(shí)動(dòng)機(jī)和目的的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)行為所侵害的客體進(jìn)行實(shí)質(zhì)性判斷;其次,要明確財(cái)物的范圍不僅包括房屋、汽車等物品,還應(yīng)當(dāng)包括貨幣、動(dòng)產(chǎn)、不動(dòng)產(chǎn)以及可計(jì)算具體價(jià)值和轉(zhuǎn)移占有的財(cái)產(chǎn)性利益;再次,要明確國(guó)家工作人員假借用他人財(cái)物不歸還行為,實(shí)質(zhì)上侵犯的是國(guó)家工作人員職務(wù)行為的不可收買性,符合受賄罪的犯罪構(gòu)成,應(yīng)以受賄罪定性。
[Abstract]:The so-called act of not returning the property of another person by a state functionary means that a state functionary is a hypocritical (or untrue) person who temporarily borrows money from another person. The act of using goods and property that can be transferred and valued by money without being returned to others. Since the act is in the form of a lawful "borrowing", which conceals the illegal purpose, the parties to the act defend themselves on the grounds of the existence of an oral or written loan agreement and the fact that the property has not changed its ownership, resulting in difficulties in the investigation and collection of evidence in the case. Many difficulties and doubts have been brought to the investigation and handling of such cases and the application of the law by the case-handling organs. On 8 July 2007, The Supreme people's Court and the Supreme people's Procuratorate have issued the opinions on certain issues concerning the Law applicable to handling Criminal cases of bribery (hereinafter referred to as opinions). Automobile and other articles belong to the act of bribery, which provides the legal basis. However, in the judicial practice, the types, methods, means and justifications of the borrowed property are various, the truth and falsehood are difficult to distinguish, and the judgment factors listed in Article 8 of the opinion can not cover the situation in practice; Secondly, opinion does not make clear the qualitative problem of borrowing other property, which leads to a lot of disputes about the nature of the behavior of false loan and use of property. It is clear that the nature of the act of false borrowing of other people's property and non-return of property before and after the use of office by state functionaries should be guided by dialectical materialism, based on the existing laws of our country, and in contrast with the provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption, Combining with the social reality and judicial practice, taking the legal research method as the tool, summarizes the concept, the characteristic and the type of the false loan behavior, uses the method of illustrative explanation, the crime of innocence and fraud that may be involved in the act of not returning the property with false loan. The causes of the dispute over the crime of embezzlement, extortion and bribery are analyzed, and the object, objective aspect, subject and subjective aspect of the act of not returning property with false loan are analyzed. Therefore, it is proved that the act of false loan and non-return of other's property by state functionary should be regarded as an act of bribery. In the characterization of behavior, firstly, we should find out and accurately judge the true "false" of the borrowing behavior, look at the essence through the phenomenon, and make a substantive judgment on the object infringed by the act on the basis of ascertaining the real motive and purpose of the actor. Secondly, it should be clear that the scope of property not only includes houses, cars and other items, but also includes currency, movable property, immovable property and property interests that can be calculated and transferred into possession. It is necessary to make clear that the behavior of state functionaries who do not return their property by using other people's property is in essence an infringement of the non-acquisitive nature of the duties of state functionaries, which conforms to the constitution of the crime of accepting bribes, and should be characterized as the crime of accepting bribes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 熊選國(guó);苗有水;;貪污受賄犯罪疑難問題解析之一 如何認(rèn)定受賄罪構(gòu)成要件[J];中國(guó)監(jiān)察;2013年14期

2 王會(huì)麗;;借用他人資金炒股牟利型受賄案的實(shí)務(wù)難題[J];中國(guó)檢察官;2013年02期

3 劉冠男;;退還上交型受賄犯罪的認(rèn)定[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年28期

4 熊輝倫;;淺談司法實(shí)踐中部分“新類型受賄”的法律理解[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年06期

5 王凱;;以“借用”為名的賄賂犯罪特殊形態(tài)之探討[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2009年03期

6 李如省;李至堅(jiān);;名為借款實(shí)為受賄的具體認(rèn)定[J];人民司法;2009年06期

7 張羽;;受賄共同犯罪若干問題探究[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年01期

8 陳晨;;淺談新型受賄犯罪案件中共同犯罪的認(rèn)定[J];天津市政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年S1期

9 薛進(jìn)展;謝杰;;對(duì)“兩高”最新受賄罪司法解釋的反思[J];法學(xué);2007年10期

10 王林祥,陳軍;如何認(rèn)定“轉(zhuǎn)化型”受賄[J];人民檢察;2005年17期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 蘇云;賄賂犯罪偵查研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2012年

2 張羽;受賄罪問題研究[D];武漢大學(xué);2009年

3 何承斌;貪污犯罪比較研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：2259387