【摘要】：改革開放以來,市場經(jīng)濟(jì)得到充分發(fā)展,各種經(jīng)濟(jì)犯罪也隨之接踵而來并呈上升趨勢。經(jīng)濟(jì)犯罪有著特殊的危害性,如集資詐騙罪,不僅破壞正常的金融管理秩序,而且侵犯公民的財產(chǎn)所有權(quán)。在司法實踐中,集資詐騙罪是比較難以認(rèn)定的,其行為結(jié)構(gòu)復(fù)雜、注重內(nèi)心事實,在認(rèn)定過程中爭議最大的是該罪的主觀方面,也就是以非法占有為目的。司法機關(guān)常常對非法占有目的認(rèn)定一籌莫展,之所以如此,是因為司法機關(guān)長期以來過于依賴和相信被告人口供,不善于根據(jù)客觀事實判斷被告人的主觀內(nèi)容。當(dāng)根據(jù)客觀事實得出的結(jié)論與被告人的供述不一致時,司法人員便無所適從。盡管當(dāng)前我國立法對集資詐騙行為的規(guī)范有了較大進(jìn)步,除了在刑法分則中單獨立法,還有相關(guān)司法解釋陸續(xù)出臺,但在實務(wù)中的定罪量刑仍存在諸多爭議。加之,此類行為涉及的犯罪案件影響人員眾多、涉及的犯罪金額巨大、造成的社會影響重大、嚴(yán)重破壞我國金融管理秩序和侵犯公私財產(chǎn)所有權(quán)。因而,進(jìn)一步考量集資詐騙行為中非法占有目的的認(rèn)定規(guī)則,具有較強的理論研究意義和實用的現(xiàn)實意義。本文旨在為解決司法實踐中集資詐騙罪非法占有目的認(rèn)定的困惑聊盡自己綿薄之力。本文從四個部分對集資詐騙罪非法占有目的展開討論。第一部分為集資詐騙罪非法占有目的概述,從刑法意義上的“非法占有”和非法占有的機能兩方面加以闡述。首先,界定了刑法意義上的“非法占有”的內(nèi)涵,區(qū)別于民法意義上的“非法占有”,其次,對集資詐騙罪中非法占有目的如何區(qū)分此罪與彼罪,罪與非罪加以詳細(xì)論證。第二部分介紹了集資詐騙罪非法占有目的理論,主要是從非法占有目的在構(gòu)成要件的地位和非法占有目的的域外比較兩方面加以論述。指出非法占有目的在集資詐騙罪的構(gòu)成要件中的地位,并對中外關(guān)于非法占有目的的各個學(xué)說加以梳理、評析,在此基礎(chǔ)上,提出自己的觀點加以論證。第三部分為集資詐騙罪非法占有目的司法認(rèn)定。首先,對目前我國關(guān)于非法占有目的的司法解釋逐一闡述,評價。其次,分析集資詐騙罪中非法占有目的的形成時間,肯定了集資行為前和集資行為中產(chǎn)生的非法占有目的,否定了集資行為后的非法占有目的。最后,論證集資詐騙罪中非法占有目的的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。第四部分為從典型案例看非法占有目的的具體認(rèn)定。選取了近年來影響比較深遠(yuǎn)的吳英案作為分析對象,并由此對司法實踐中非法占有目的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)加以具體運用和分析,最后引申了筆者對當(dāng)前我國民間金融的法律規(guī)制的反思。
[Abstract]:Since the reform and opening up, the market economy has been fully developed, and various economic crimes have followed and increased. Economic crime has special harmfulness, such as the crime of financing fraud, which not only destroys the normal order of financial management, but also infringes the property ownership of citizens. In judicial practice, the crime of fund-raising fraud is more difficult to identify, its behavior structure is complex, pay attention to the inner facts, the most controversial in the process of identification is the subjective aspect of the crime, that is, the purpose of illegal possession. The judicial organs often find it difficult to determine the purpose of illegal possession. The reason is that the judicial organs have relied too much on and believed the defendant's confession for a long time, and are not good at judging the subjective content of the defendant according to the objective facts. When the conclusion based on objective facts is inconsistent with the defendant's statement, the judicial officer is at a loss. Although the current legislation of our country has made great progress in the regulation of fund-raising fraud, in addition to the separate legislation in the criminal law, there are related judicial explanations, but there are still many disputes in the practice of conviction and sentencing. In addition, this kind of behavior involves a large number of criminal cases, involving a huge amount of crime, resulting in a significant social impact, serious damage to the financial management order and violation of public and private property ownership. Therefore, it is of great theoretical significance and practical significance to further consider the rules of determining the purpose of illegal possession in fund-raising fraud. The purpose of this paper is to solve the problem of illegal possession in judicial practice. This paper discusses the purpose of illegal possession in four parts. The first part is an overview of the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of fund-raising fraud, from the criminal law meaning of "illegal possession" and the function of illegal possession. Firstly, it defines the connotation of "illegal possession" in the meaning of criminal law, which is different from "illegal possession" in the meaning of civil law. Secondly, it demonstrates in detail how the purpose of illegal possession in the crime of collecting funds is distinguished from the other crime, crime and non-crime. The second part introduces the theory of the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of fund-raising fraud, mainly from two aspects: the status of the purpose of illegal possession in the constitutive elements and the extraterritorial comparison of the purpose of illegal possession. This paper points out the status of the purpose of illegal possession in the constitutive elements of the crime of fraud by raising funds, and combs and comments on the various theories about the purpose of illegal possession at home and abroad, and on this basis, puts forward its own viewpoint to prove it. The third part is the judicial determination of the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of financing fraud. First of all, the current judicial interpretation of the purpose of illegal possession one by one, evaluation. Secondly, the paper analyzes the forming time of the purpose of illegal possession in the crime of fund-raising fraud, affirms the purpose of illegal possession before and during the act of raising funds, and negates the purpose of illegal possession after the act of raising funds. Finally, the paper demonstrates the standard of the purpose of illegal possession in the crime of financing fraud. The fourth part is the concrete confirmation of the purpose of illegal possession from typical cases. This paper selects Wu Ying case, which has far-reaching influence in recent years, as the object of analysis, and then applies and analyzes the criterion of the purpose of illegal possession in judicial practice. Finally, the author rethinks the current legal regulation of folk finance in our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(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1條

1 李娜;集資詐騙罪構(gòu)成要件探析[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2005年10期

，

本文編號：2377913