本文選題：刑法 + 洗錢罪��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：“不懂外國法律,也不會深知和悟解本國法律的特征和品格”。1美國是世界上最早將洗錢規(guī)定為犯罪的國家之一，在洗錢罪立法方面美國有較為豐富的經(jīng)驗(yàn)可為借鑒。雖然中美兩國分屬不同法系，有著各自獨(dú)特的社會治理結(jié)構(gòu)和法秩序，但洗錢罪的國際性特征，為中美兩國洗錢罪的比較提供了可能。2 本文共分六章，大約17萬字左右，其主要內(nèi)容梗概如下： 第一章中美洗錢罪歷史演進(jìn)比較。中美兩國在洗錢罪的歷史演進(jìn)中雖然都呈現(xiàn)出洗錢罪上游犯罪不斷擴(kuò)展、洗錢罪主體不斷擴(kuò)充的歷史趨勢。但由于兩國政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化和法律傳統(tǒng)的不同，兩國在洗錢罪立法演進(jìn)中呈現(xiàn)出更多的體系性差異和發(fā)展路徑差異。 在體系構(gòu)建上，源于兩國對犯罪概念的不同理解，在洗錢罪立法體系上形成了雙重立法體系與單一立法體系的差異。美國洗錢罪的雙重立法體系即包括與我國《刑法》191條和312條內(nèi)容相似的以打擊洗錢行為本身為目的的狹義洗錢罪立法體系，也包括對違反反洗錢特定義務(wù)行為的刑事制裁措施，在體系上形成了嚴(yán)密的反洗錢刑事法網(wǎng)。與美國不同，基于我國刑法謙抑性和補(bǔ)充性的特點(diǎn)，對違反反洗錢義務(wù)的行為刑事法律未予以介入。這種單一的反洗錢刑事立法體系加之在片面共犯理論爭議較大的現(xiàn)實(shí)背景下難以對特定反洗錢義務(wù)主體故意不履行義務(wù)的片面幫助行為形成有力的外部約束，造成反洗錢刑事法律體系不應(yīng)有的立法漏洞。 在發(fā)展路徑上，中美兩國形成了被動接受與強(qiáng)勢擴(kuò)張的鮮明對比。高度發(fā)達(dá)的金融服務(wù)業(yè)在為美國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展提供便利的同時(shí)也使其成為洗錢犯罪的重災(zāi)區(qū)，這迫使美國在洗錢問題上不得不主動亮劍積極出擊。而在打擊洗錢的道路選擇上美國充分認(rèn)識到國際協(xié)作的重要性，依托其超級大國的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)地位，美國通過各類國際組織，采取多邊、雙邊甚至是單邊施壓的方式在國際上推銷其反洗錢制度。與美國內(nèi)需型發(fā)展道路不同，我國洗錢罪的歷史演進(jìn)受國際公約影響較大，呈現(xiàn)出一定的立法被動性，缺乏整體的立法規(guī)劃，以打補(bǔ)丁的立法方式造就了我國洗錢罪混亂的立法體系。這種混亂突出表現(xiàn)為洗錢罪的罪名混亂、犯罪分類的混亂、刑事法與行政法洗錢概念的混亂等�；靵y局面的形成，從形式上看是補(bǔ)丁式立法模式的直接后果，從根源上看源于我國對洗錢罪侵害法益的曲解，從學(xué)理研究上看源于我國對洗錢罪特征的誤解。 第二章中美洗錢罪侵害客體比較。對洗錢罪本質(zhì)的認(rèn)識只能源于對其侵害法益的洞察，唯此才能為洗錢罪刑事立法尋找合理的根源。關(guān)于洗錢罪侵害的客體到底是國家金融管理秩序還是正常的司法活動在我國長期爭論不休。美國學(xué)者也認(rèn)為洗錢罪侵害了金融管理秩序和國家司法權(quán)，但同樣的結(jié)論未必是同樣的含義。對違反反洗錢義務(wù)的行為進(jìn)行刑事制裁是美國洗錢罪侵害金融管理秩序說的前提，與美國不同，我國對特定義務(wù)主體違反洗錢義務(wù)的行為未納入到刑事法律規(guī)范的范圍內(nèi)，因而美國的結(jié)論不能無差別的適用到我國洗錢罪侵害法益的結(jié)論中。 我國洗錢罪是否侵害了金融管理秩序爭論的背后實(shí)際上是在風(fēng)險(xiǎn)社會下洗錢是否侵害了一國金融安全的不同解答。從宏觀上看社會整體的洗錢行為對一國的金融安全具有一定的負(fù)面影響，我國學(xué)者之所以得出洗錢行為侵害金融管理秩序的結(jié)論就是將整體洗錢的社會后果當(dāng)作個(gè)體洗錢的社會后果進(jìn)行刑事法律評價(jià)后得出的當(dāng)然結(jié)論。從微觀上看個(gè)體的洗錢行為由于其對國家金融安全的影響具有不確定性和輕微性因而不值得刑法進(jìn)行規(guī)制。洗錢行為犯罪化的刑事立法根基仍在于洗錢行為對我國司法權(quán)的侵害。 第三章中美洗錢罪客觀方面比較。在洗錢行為類型的分類上，美國未從客觀方面對行為類型做出限制，法條通過主觀要素來體現(xiàn)行為的可歸責(zé)性并作為區(qū)分行為性質(zhì)的唯一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，任何在特定主觀故意驅(qū)使下的交易行為都可能構(gòu)成洗錢罪，這種立法模式使美國洗錢罪能不斷適應(yīng)洗錢方式的發(fā)展、變化，并能靈活地適應(yīng)國際公約的要求。與美國不同，我國采通了“列舉加概括”的立法模式，但其概括性的規(guī)定仍不能使洗錢方式突破轉(zhuǎn)移、轉(zhuǎn)換、掩飾、隱瞞四種類型。對行為類型從客觀方面做過多限制的立法模式使我國洗錢罪立法既不能完全涵蓋國際公約規(guī)定的洗錢行為類型也使其喪失了應(yīng)對社會現(xiàn)實(shí)的靈活性和廣泛的適應(yīng)性。 在上游犯罪的規(guī)定上，美國各洗錢罪適用統(tǒng)一的上游犯罪圈，并通過列舉類罪名和具體罪名的兩種方式對上游犯罪進(jìn)行規(guī)定，在類罪名能夠明確地表明其所包含的具體罪名的情況下使用類罪名的列舉，在類罪名具有模糊性的情況下列舉具體罪名，從立法規(guī)范上和技術(shù)上明確了洗錢罪上游犯罪的具體范圍。與美國相比，圍繞我國刑法191條和312條的規(guī)定，我國形成了兩大上游犯罪圈，但由于191條對上游犯罪只規(guī)定了類罪名，而部分類罪名又具有一定的模糊性，這給上游犯罪圈的區(qū)分和上游犯罪的確定帶來一定的困難。 在犯罪對象性質(zhì)的確定上，中美兩國分別采取了純益主義和總額主義的立場。關(guān)于洗錢行為的對象即“犯罪所得”是否包括用于犯罪的成本，在美國最高院形成了純益主義、總額主義和折中主義三種觀點(diǎn)，但由于純益主義和折中主義存在諸多理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)問題，最終被美國國會所淘汰。在洗錢行為對象性質(zhì)問題上，目前我國尚無相關(guān)立法和司法解釋對其進(jìn)行說明，對其內(nèi)涵的探究只能借助其上位概念“違法所得”。根據(jù)刑法第64條“違法所得”不同于“違禁品和供犯罪所用的本人財(cái)物”的規(guī)定可以推斷立法上對違法所得采取的是純益主義的觀點(diǎn)。在司法解釋上我國也出現(xiàn)了對“違法所得”的解釋由總額主要向純益主義的轉(zhuǎn)變。對純益主義和總額主義的政策選擇仍離不開對洗錢罪侵害法益的考察，作為對國家司法權(quán)的侵害，洗錢行為不但影響了司法機(jī)關(guān)對違法所得的追繳也妨礙了司法機(jī)關(guān)對供犯罪所用的本人財(cái)物的沒收，因而應(yīng)立足于總額主義的觀點(diǎn)對洗錢對象的性質(zhì)進(jìn)行界定。 第四章中美洗錢罪主體比較。中美洗錢罪主體的差異主要體現(xiàn)在自洗錢行為是否構(gòu)成洗錢罪的問題。美國將自洗錢行為入罪的規(guī)定是對其贓物犯罪歷史傳統(tǒng)的傳承。上游犯罪主體能否成為洗錢罪主體，我國在學(xué)說上形成了肯定說、否定說和折中說三種學(xué)說。本文雖然支持否定說，但并不認(rèn)同否定說的論證方式和論證基點(diǎn)。不可罰的事后行為理論是肯定說與否定說在認(rèn)定自洗錢行為是否構(gòu)罪的基本爭論點(diǎn)。否定說一方面從文本解釋出發(fā)認(rèn)為191條的條文表述已經(jīng)明確將自洗錢主體排除在洗錢罪主體之外，一方面又用不可罰的事后行為理論證明191條立法的合理性。不可罰的事后行為理論是刑法適用理論，用刑法適用理論去證明立法的合理性問題本身缺乏論證邏輯的正確性。不可罰的事后行為理論適用的前提是行為本身具有構(gòu)成要件的符合性，但由于缺乏違法性或有責(zé)性因而不構(gòu)成犯罪。上游犯罪主體的洗錢行為與盜竊后毀壞贓物的行為存在本質(zhì)的區(qū)別，前者系191條已將其排除在構(gòu)成要件符合性階段，后者仍具有構(gòu)成要件符合性。因此論證自洗錢行為是否構(gòu)罪不是司法適用的問題，而是立法的合理性問題。我國之所以將自洗錢排除在洗錢罪主體之外，與我國對待贓物罪的歷史傳統(tǒng)有關(guān)，也是不得強(qiáng)迫自證其罪原則在刑事實(shí)體法中的體現(xiàn)。不得強(qiáng)迫自證其罪不僅是刑事訴訟法中的原則，在刑事實(shí)體法中也有體現(xiàn)，如我國刑法第305條、306條和307條的規(guī)定就是對這一原則在實(shí)體法中的應(yīng)用。不得強(qiáng)迫自證其罪是天賦的自然權(quán)利，是被國際公約認(rèn)可的公民權(quán)利，上游犯罪分子清洗自己臟錢的行為是對其權(quán)利的正當(dāng)行使，因而不構(gòu)成洗錢罪。 第五章中美洗錢罪主觀方面比較。中美兩國在洗錢罪主觀方面的規(guī)定中既有相同點(diǎn)又有差異性。相同點(diǎn)主要表現(xiàn)在均將過失排除在洗錢罪之外。差異性主要體現(xiàn)在對交易對象性質(zhì)的明知程度、對上游犯罪圈的認(rèn)識內(nèi)容、故意樣態(tài)三個(gè)方面。 在交易對象性質(zhì)的明知程度方面，美國為了解決特定義務(wù)主體在能夠知曉他人洗錢的情況下，故意采取措施規(guī)避認(rèn)識可能性，不履行反洗錢義務(wù)的現(xiàn)實(shí)問題，將“故意不知”納入洗錢罪“明知”的范疇，從實(shí)體面擴(kuò)大“明知”范圍。與美國相比，特定義務(wù)主體反洗錢刑事責(zé)任缺失是我國洗錢罪立法體系的重大缺陷，在這種缺陷性的立法體系下，我國洗錢罪中的“明知”必然只能包括確定性認(rèn)識和可能性認(rèn)識兩種，因而在完善洗錢罪立法體系的過程中，有必要將“故意不知”納入到特定主體不履行反洗錢義務(wù)法條構(gòu)造的主觀范疇之中。 在對上游犯罪圈的認(rèn)識內(nèi)容方面，美國不需要行為人對上游犯罪圈中的犯罪有認(rèn)識，行為人只需知道其交易對象全部或部分來源于州、聯(lián)邦或其他國家所規(guī)定的重罪即可，上游犯罪圈的存在不是為了限定洗錢者的認(rèn)識內(nèi)容，而是作為限定控方證明內(nèi)容的一種方式。與美國相比我國刑法第191條中上游犯罪圈的規(guī)定限定了行為人的認(rèn)識內(nèi)容，，呈現(xiàn)一定的封閉性。封閉性的認(rèn)識范圍加之對上游犯罪規(guī)范性的立法描述，為洗錢罪的認(rèn)定帶來了困難。有必要借鑒美國區(qū)分主觀明知內(nèi)容與犯罪對象的證明內(nèi)容的做法，結(jié)合312條的規(guī)定，將191條洗錢罪中行為人的明知內(nèi)容擴(kuò)展到所有犯罪。 在故意樣態(tài)方面，美國通過規(guī)定“蓄意”和“明知”兩種主觀心態(tài)形成錯落配置、有機(jī)聯(lián)系的刑事法網(wǎng)。與美國相比，我國刑法將191條規(guī)定為目的犯，這可能與金融犯罪一般是由直接故意構(gòu)成的傳統(tǒng)理念有關(guān)，也不排除立法者在洗錢罪中添加目的性要素的目的是為了強(qiáng)調(diào)洗錢罪的行為無價(jià)值性的可能，甚至可能與立法機(jī)關(guān)缺乏對國際公約相關(guān)犯罪構(gòu)成仔細(xì)分析有關(guān)。目的犯的規(guī)定不但不符合國際公約的規(guī)定，而且限制了洗錢罪的適用范圍，增加了犯罪認(rèn)定的困難，導(dǎo)致了法律文本之間的不協(xié)調(diào)。 第六章中美洗錢罪刑罰比較。美國洗錢罪上游犯罪統(tǒng)一劃定，上游犯罪圈在立法上對量刑體系不具有影響性，由于影響刑量設(shè)定的因素相對單一，因而美國洗錢罪刑量體系彼此協(xié)調(diào)統(tǒng)一。與美國不同，我國存在兩大上游犯罪圈，并根據(jù)上游犯罪圈的不同匹配不同的刑量體系，以上游犯罪圈的不同來確定刑量圈的不同需要上游犯罪圈的刑量等級與對應(yīng)的洗錢罪的刑量等級相匹配，但我國在191條、312條和349條的刑量設(shè)置上并未實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)，導(dǎo)致洗錢罪刑量體系呈現(xiàn)一定的混亂。這種混亂主要體現(xiàn)在特別法條和一般法條刑罰輕重設(shè)置顛倒，重罪輕罰、輕罪重罰兩個(gè)方面。 在對具體犯罪的量刑上，美國《量刑指南》對洗錢罪刑量的調(diào)節(jié)上充分考慮了上游犯罪的種類、資金用途、洗錢罪主體是否是職業(yè)洗錢者等綜合性因素，這些因素對判斷我國刑法第191條和312條中情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的情況均具有借鑒意義。
[Abstract]:"Do not understand foreign laws, and do not understand and understand the characteristics and character of national law".1 America is one of the first countries in the world to make money laundering as a crime. The United States has a rich experience in the legislation of the crime of money laundering. Although China and the United States belong to different legal systems, they have their own unique social governance structure and law rank. Preface, but the international characteristics of money laundering crime provide a possible comparison for the crime of money laundering between China and the United States.2
This article is divided into six chapters, about 17 words, and the main contents are as follows:
The first chapter is the historical evolution of the Sino-American crime of money laundering. In the historical evolution of the crime of money laundering between the two countries, China and the United States both present the historical trend of the continuous expansion of the crime of money laundering and the continuous expansion of the subject of the crime of money laundering. But because of the differences in the political, economic, cultural and legal traditions of the two countries, the two countries present more systems in the legislative evolution of the crime of money laundering. Differences in sexual differences and development paths.
The system construction comes from the different understanding of the concept of crime in the two countries and the difference between the dual legislative system and the single legislative system on the legislation system of the crime of money laundering. The dual legislative system of the crime of money laundering in the United States includes the legislation of the crime of money laundering, which is similar to the criminal law >191 and the 312 contents of the crime against money laundering itself. The system, including the criminal sanctions against the specific duty of anti money laundering, has formed a strict criminal law net against money laundering in the system. Unlike the United States, it is based on the humility and complementarity of our criminal law, and does not intervene in the criminal law that violates the anti money laundering obligation. It is difficult to form a strong external constraint on the one-sided help of the specific anti money laundering obligation under the controversial realistic background of the one sided accomplice theory, which causes the legislative loopholes that the anti money laundering criminal law system should not have.
On the path of development, China and the United States have formed a sharp contrast between passive acceptance and strong expansion. The highly developed financial service industry has also made it a heavy disaster area for money laundering crime, which compels the United States to take the initiative to fight money on the problem of money laundering. The United States is fully aware of the importance of international cooperation, relying on the political and economic status of its superpowers, the United States is selling its anti money laundering system internationally through various international organizations, multilateral, bilateral and even unilateral pressure. The historical evolution of the crime of money laundering in China is influenced by international conventions. Larger, a certain legislative passivity, lack of the overall legislative plan, the legislative mode of the patching of the legislative system created the chaos of the crime of money laundering in our country. This confusion is characterized by the confusion of the crime of money laundering, the confusion of the classification of the crime, the confusion of the concept of money laundering in criminal law and administrative law. It is the direct consequence of the patched legislative pattern, which originates from the misinterpretation of the crime of money laundering in our country and the misunderstanding of the characteristics of the crime of money laundering from our academic research.
The second chapter is the comparison of the object of the crime of money laundering between China and the United States. The understanding of the essence of the crime of money laundering is only energy for the insight into its infringement of legal interest. Only in this way can we find a reasonable root for the criminal legislation of the crime of money laundering. It is also believed that the crime of money laundering has infringed the order of financial management and the judicial power of the state, but the same conclusion may not be the same meaning. Criminal sanctions against the anti money laundering obligation are the premise of the infringement of financial management order in the United States. Unlike the United States, the act of violating the duty of money laundering is not included in our country. Within the scope of legal norms, the conclusion of the United States can not be applied to the conclusion that money laundering violates legal interests in China.
In fact, whether the crime of money laundering has infringed the order of financial management is in fact whether money laundering has infringed the financial security of a country under the risk society. From the macroscopic view, the whole social money laundering behavior of the society has certain negative effects on the financial security of a country. The reason why the Chinese scholars have come to the money laundering is to infringe on the financial management The conclusion of the order is to take the social consequences of the whole money laundering as a result of the criminal legal evaluation of the social consequences of individual money laundering. From the microcosmic point of view, the individual's money laundering behavior is not worth the regulation of the criminal law because of its uncertainty and slight influence on the national financial security. The legislative foundation still lies in the violation of our judicial power by money laundering.
The third chapter compares the objective aspects of the crime of money laundering in China and the United States. In the classification of the types of money laundering, the United States does not restrict the type of behavior from the objective aspects. The law article reflects the imputability of the behavior through the subjective elements and is the only standard to distinguish the nature of the behavior. Any transaction behavior under the specific subjective and intentional drive may constitute money laundering. This legislative mode makes the crime of money laundering in the United States adapt to the development and change of money laundering, and can adapt flexibly to the requirements of international conventions. Unlike the United States, China has adopted a legislative model of "enumerating and summarizing", but its general provisions can not make the way of money laundering transfer, transform, hide and hide the four types. The legislative mode of excessive restriction on the objective aspect makes the legislation of the crime of money laundering in our country neither completely covers the type of money laundering stipulated in the International Convention and makes it lose its flexibility and wide adaptability to social reality.
In the provisions of the upstream crime, the United States for the crime of money laundering is applicable to the unified upstream crime circle, and through the enumeration of two types of crimes and specific charges to stipulate the upstream crime. In the case that the class charges can clearly show the specific charges contained in the case, the use of class charges is enumerated, in the case of vagueness of the class charges. In terms of specific charges, the specific scope of the upstream crime of the crime of money laundering is clearly defined in terms of legislative norms and technology. Compared with the United States, China has formed two major upstream crime circles around the provisions of 191 and 312 articles in the criminal law of China. However, because the 191 articles only specify a class name for the upstream crime, and some types of crime have a certain ambiguity, which is the upper stream. The distinction between criminal circles and the determination of upstream crimes bring certain difficulties.
On the determination of the nature of the object of the crime, China and the United States adopted the standpoint of pure benefit and totalism respectively. The object of the money laundering, namely, whether the "proceeds of crime" includes the cost of crime, has formed three views of pure benefit, totalism and compromise in the supreme court of the United States, but because of pure benefit and eclecticism. In many theoretical and practical problems, it is finally eliminated by the United States Congress. On the nature of the object of money laundering, there is no relevant legislation and judicial explanation in our country to explain it, and the exploration of its connotation can only be carried out with the aid of its epistatic concept "illegal income". According to the sixty-fourth article of criminal law, "illegal income" is different from "contraband goods and offenders." The provisions of the personal property used in the crime can be inferred from the purely beneficial view of the lawmaking. In the judicial interpretation, the interpretation of the "illegal income" has also changed from the total to the pure benefit. The choice of the pure benefit and the total policy of the total doctrine still cannot be separated from the examination of the legal interest of the crime of money laundering. As a violation of the judicial power of the state, the behavior of money laundering not only affects the recovery of the illegal income of the judicial organs but also hinders the confiscation of the property used by the judiciary. Therefore, it should be based on the view of the totalitalism to define the nature of the money laundering.
The fourth chapter compares the subject of Sino-American crime of money laundering. The main difference between the subject of Sino-American money laundering is the question of whether the money laundering is a crime of money laundering. The provisions of the incrimination of the money laundering act in the United States are the inheritance of the historical tradition of the crime of the stolen goods. There are three doctrines of speaking and compromise. Although this article supports negation, it does not agree with the way of argument and the base point of argument. The theory of impunity is the basic argument of whether the affirmative and negative theory is the basic argument of whether the self money laundering is constitutive of the crime or not. On the one hand, the expression of the 191 articles is clear from the text interpretation. The subject of money laundering is excluded from the subject of the crime of money laundering. On the one hand, it proves the rationality of the 191 legislation by the theory of impunity after the act of hindsight. The theory of impunity is the applicable theory of criminal law and the theory of criminal law applies the theory to prove the rationality of the legislation itself. The premise of the application is that the behavior itself has the conformance of the constitutive elements, but it does not constitute a crime because of the lack of illegality or responsibility. The money laundering behavior of the main body of the upstream crime is essentially different from the behavior of destroying the stolen goods after the theft. The former is the 191 article which has been excluded in the conformance stage of the constituent parts, and the latter still has the constituent elements. Therefore, it is not the question of judicial application, but the rationality of the legislation. The reason why our country excludes money laundering from the main body of the crime of money laundering, is related to the historical tradition of dealing with the crime of stolen goods in our country, and is also the embodiment of the principle of not forcing the self proof of the crime in the criminal entity law. Crime is not only the principle in the criminal procedure law, but also in the criminal substantive law. For example, the 305th articles of the criminal law, the 306 and the 307 are the application of this principle in the substantive law. It is not obliged to force self proof to be a natural right of talent, the civil rights recognized by the international convention, and the upstream criminals to clean their own dirty money. Behavior is the proper exercise of its rights and therefore does not constitute money laundering.
The fifth chapter compares the subjective aspects of the crime of money laundering in China and the United States. There are both the similarities and differences in the subjective aspects of the crime of money laundering between the two countries and the United States. The same points are mainly manifested in the exclusion of the negligence from the crime of money laundering. The difference is mainly reflected in the knowledge of the nature of the transaction object, the understanding content of the upstream crime circle and the intentional pattern of three parties. Noodles.
In terms of the knowledge of the nature of the transaction, the United States, in order to solve the specific obligation subject in the case of knowing other people's money laundering, deliberately takes measures to avoid the possibility of understanding, and does not fulfill the practical problems of anti money laundering obligations. It will "knowingly do not know" into the category of "knowingly" in the crime of money laundering, and expand the scope of "knowing" from the substantive area. Compared with the United States, the lack of criminal responsibility for the anti money laundering of specific subjects is a major defect in the legislative system of the crime of money laundering in our country. Under this defective legislative system, the "clear knowledge" in the crime of money laundering in our country is bound to include two kinds of certainty and possibility. Therefore, in the process of perfecting the legislation system of the crime of money laundering, it is necessary to "cause" the "reason". Meaning is not included in the subjective category of the specific subject not performing the law of anti money laundering obligation.
In terms of the understanding of the upstream crime circle, the United States does not need a person to know the crime in the upstream crime circle. The perpetrator only needs to know that the object of the transaction is all or partly from the state, the federal or other countries, and the existence of the upstream crime circle is not to limit the content of the money launderer, but as a limit. Compared with the United States, the regulation of the criminal circle in the 191st middle and upper reaches of the criminal law of our country defines the content of the perpetrator, and presents a certain closeness. The closed understanding and the legislative description of the norm of the upstream crime have brought difficulties for the identification of the crime of money laundering. It is necessary to draw on the distinction between the United States and the subjective. Knowing the contents of the contents of the crime and the contents of the proof of the crime, and combining the provisions of the 312 articles, the contents of the 191 acts of money laundering shall be extended to all.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D924.3;D971.2

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 信羿;論洗錢罪與掩飾、隱瞞犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪的關(guān)系[D];吉林大學(xué);2015年

本文編號：1995532