【摘要】：隨著我國市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的不斷發(fā)展,社會主義法律制度的不斷完善,法律成為越來越多的公民維護(hù)自己合法權(quán)益的武器。但是由于法律具有的滯后性等原因,些社會主體開始利用我國實(shí)體法和程序法上的部分漏洞為自己謀取不正當(dāng)利益,這一行為反映在社會經(jīng)濟(jì)活動中表現(xiàn)為一種新型的詐騙模式——訴訟詐騙。由于現(xiàn)實(shí)中訴訟詐騙行為呈現(xiàn)出多樣性的特點(diǎn),加之我國理論界對于訴訟詐騙的定義也未達(dá)成共識,因此對訴訟詐騙行為應(yīng)當(dāng)如何定義和定性以及應(yīng)當(dāng)適用何種法律進(jìn)行規(guī)制,大家的看法各不相同。雖然理論界對于訴訟詐騙的定義尚存爭議,但是對其行為的特點(diǎn)也有一定的共識,即行為人通過進(jìn)行虛假訴訟,欺騙司法機(jī)關(guān),使司法機(jī)關(guān)對案件的真實(shí)情況作出錯誤的判斷進(jìn)而做出錯誤的判決,來實(shí)現(xiàn)其非法占有的目的。從社會現(xiàn)實(shí)角度來看,訴訟詐騙侵犯的不僅是公民的合法財(cái)產(chǎn)以及財(cái)產(chǎn)性權(quán)利,也對我國司法機(jī)關(guān)的正常審判秩序造成了破壞,更加損害了法律的公信力與尊嚴(yán)。從法律規(guī)制的角度來說,訴訟詐騙具備十分嚴(yán)重的社會危害性,已超出民事訴訟法律的調(diào)整范圍,具有充分的刑事當(dāng)罰性,應(yīng)當(dāng)由刑法對其進(jìn)行規(guī)制。 然而,由于刑法的滯后性等原因,我國現(xiàn)階段對于訴訟詐騙行為只能由民事法律對其進(jìn)行規(guī)制,但由于民法特點(diǎn)的限制對其的懲罰力度較輕,無法達(dá)到有效遏制訴訟詐騙發(fā)生的目的。我國刑法學(xué)界雖然對訴訟詐騙的危害性已經(jīng)有了較為清晰的認(rèn)識,但是由于刑法條文中對該行為應(yīng)當(dāng)如何進(jìn)行規(guī)制沒有明確規(guī)定,最高人民檢察院的“答復(fù)”又不足以解決全部問題,因此司法機(jī)關(guān)對訴訟詐騙的處理結(jié)果并不相同,這也在一定程度上損害了我國法制的統(tǒng)一。因此從理論上對訴訟詐騙進(jìn)行清晰的界定將大大有助于未來我國對訴訟詐騙的刑法規(guī)制。 本文將分四個部分對訴訟詐騙行為的概念界定與罪刑認(rèn)定兩方面問題進(jìn)行研究,并提出一些立法構(gòu)想以對訴訟詐騙進(jìn)行有效規(guī)制。第一部分為從司法實(shí)踐看訴訟詐騙的認(rèn)定。該部分在簡要介紹訴訟詐騙現(xiàn)象的基礎(chǔ)上,提出我國理論界與司法實(shí)踐部門對訴訟詐騙定義的認(rèn)識,并介紹外國刑法理論中對訴訟詐騙的定義,引出下文。第二部分,即訴訟詐騙的定性問題討論：在分析國內(nèi)外有關(guān)訴訟詐騙定性的法律規(guī)定和理論爭議的基礎(chǔ)上提出筆者對訴訟詐騙定性的觀點(diǎn)。第三部分,為訴訟詐騙罪的立法構(gòu)想,主要討論了訴訟詐騙罪的構(gòu)成和法定刑設(shè)計(jì)。第四部分,是對訴訟詐騙罪其他問題的說明,包括訴訟詐騙罪與非罪、此罪與彼罪、訴訟詐騙罪的停止形態(tài)等。
[Abstract]:With the development of the market economy and the perfection of the socialist legal system, the law has become a weapon for more and more citizens to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. However, due to the lagging nature of the law, some social subjects began to take advantage of some loopholes in our substantive law and procedural law to seek improper interests for themselves. This behavior is reflected in social and economic activities as a new type of fraud-litigation fraud. Due to the diversity of litigation fraud in reality and the lack of consensus on the definition of litigation fraud in our country, how to define and characterize litigation fraud and what laws should be applied should be regulated. People have different views. Although the definition of litigation fraud is still controversial in the theoretical circle, there is a certain consensus on the characteristics of its behavior, that is, the perpetrator deceives the judicial organs by conducting false litigation. To make the judiciary make a wrong judgment on the true situation of the case and then make the wrong judgment to achieve the purpose of illegal possession. From the point of view of social reality, litigation fraud infringes not only on citizens' legal property and property rights, but also on the normal judicial order of our country, and on the credibility and dignity of the law. From the perspective of legal regulation, litigation fraud has a very serious social harm, has exceeded the scope of the adjustment of civil litigation law, has sufficient criminal punishment, should be regulated by the criminal law. However, due to the lag of criminal law and other reasons, our country can only regulate litigation fraud by civil law at this stage, but its punishment is relatively light due to the limitation of civil law characteristics. Can not achieve the purpose of effectively curbing the occurrence of litigation fraud. Although there has been a clear understanding of the harmfulness of litigation fraud in the criminal law circles of our country, however, there is no clear stipulation on how to regulate the behavior in the articles of criminal law. The "reply" of the Supreme people's Procuratorate is not enough to solve all the problems, so the result of the judicial organ dealing with the litigation fraud is not the same, which also damages the unification of our country's legal system to some extent. Therefore, a clear definition of litigation fraud in theory will greatly contribute to the criminal law regulation of litigation fraud in the future. This article will divide into four parts to carry on the research to the litigation fraud concept definition and the crime and punishment cognizance two aspects question, and proposes some legislative ideas to carry on the effective regulation to the lawsuit fraud. The first part is the cognizance of litigation fraud from judicial practice. On the basis of brief introduction of litigation fraud, this part puts forward the understanding of the definition of litigation fraud in our country's theoretical circle and judicial practice department, and introduces the definition of litigation fraud in foreign criminal law theory, which leads to the following. The second part discusses the qualitative problem of litigation fraud: based on the analysis of the legal provisions and theoretical disputes about the characterization of litigation fraud at home and abroad, the author puts forward the author's point of view on the qualitative nature of litigation fraud. The third part mainly discusses the constitution and the legal penalty design of the lawsuit fraud crime. The fourth part is the explanation of other problems of the crime of litigation fraud, including the crime of litigation fraud and non-crime, this crime and that crime, the form of cessation of the crime of litigation fraud, and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 趙秉志，，孫力;妨害司法活動罪研究[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1994年03期

2 游濤;;訴訟欺詐之刑法規(guī)制[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年01期

3 湯維建;;論民事訴訟中的誠信原則[J];法學(xué)家;2003年03期

4 趙秉志;張偉珂;;訴訟詐騙問題新論[J];甘肅社會科學(xué);2012年06期

5 閆雨;黃華生;;訴訟詐騙之定性分析[J];中國檢察官;2010年24期

6 趙赤;李燕山;;論虛假訴訟的刑法規(guī)制[J];江漢論壇;2010年02期

7 張明楷;論三角詐騙[J];法學(xué)研究;2004年02期

8 陳桂明,李仕春;訴訟欺詐及其法律控制[J];法學(xué)研究;1998年06期

9 田升;;論訴訟詐騙及其性質(zhì)認(rèn)定——與董玉庭商榷[J];新疆社會科學(xué);2006年04期

10 何澤宏,余輝勝;增設(shè)民事訴訟欺詐罪的立法思考——從三株質(zhì)量風(fēng)波案談起[J];云南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(法學(xué)版);2003年01期

本文編號：2274106