【摘要】：隨著我國經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,虛假訴訟行為也愈演越烈,為了遏制這種既危害國家司法秩序,又侵害他人合法權(quán)益的行為。近年來,我國加強了對虛假訴訟類案件的重視程度,首先在2012年修改的民訴法中規(guī)定了虛假訴訟行為,之后又在15年的《刑法修正案(九)》中正式新設(shè)"虛假訴訟罪",這樣一來,在立法上,我國就完成了虛假訴訟的民刑對接。但是,在實體法與程序法中,我國對這種行為的規(guī)制仍然有許多不完善的地方。使虛假訴訟并沒有得到最佳的規(guī)制效果。本文通過對"虛假訴訟第一案"進行分析,探討了在民刑對接角度下虛假訴訟第一案應(yīng)如何判決以及在判決中可能遇到的問題,并作出了相關(guān)思考。"虛假訴訟第一案"作為第一例由我國最高人民法院確認的虛假訴訟案件,猶如象征著我國司法機關(guān)為維護司法秩序,保護司法公信力而吹響的號角,為虛假訴訟行為敲響警鐘。此案的行為人特萊維公司與歐寶公司多次惡意興訟、多次虛構(gòu)債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系的行為體現(xiàn)出兩公司主觀惡性大惡意侵占他人財產(chǎn)數(shù)額大。歐寶公司與特萊維公司興起的"虛假訴訟第一案"已經(jīng)足以滿足刑事虛假訴訟罪的犯罪構(gòu)成,但是由于該案判決時間略早于《刑法修正案(九)》出臺時間,所以虛假訴訟第一案的行為人并沒有受到刑事制裁,使該案的示范意義大打折扣。對虛假訴訟第一案進行法理上的認定及分析不僅有助于厘清該案的法律脈絡(luò)更有助于深入挖掘該案的價值——虛假訴訟第一案的價值不僅停留在我國最高法認定的第一例民事虛假訴訟案上更體現(xiàn)在通過此案研究我國民刑對后對虛假訴訟行為的規(guī)制問題上。要加強對虛假訴訟行為的規(guī)制,在民事上要提高虛假訴訟行為的犯罪成本,暢通案外人的救濟渠道,才能從根本上降低虛假訴訟案件的發(fā)生幾率,在刑事上,要細化虛假訴訟罪的相關(guān)規(guī)定,在程序法角度上,要明確虛假訴訟的追訴機關(guān)并建立民刑對接程序、保障案外人能通過自訴使虛假訴訟行為人受到法律制裁。本文從虛假訴訟第一案引入,分析我國虛假訴訟民刑對接后法律規(guī)制的困境,并提出相關(guān)建議。第一章,緒論部分,介紹本文選題目的意義以及本文選題的依據(jù)來源。第二章,介紹虛假訴訟第一案的案情,并從民事角度和刑事角度分別對虛假訴訟第一案作出認定:在民事上認定虛假訴訟第一案,同時虛假訴訟第一案也滿足刑事虛假訴訟罪的犯罪構(gòu)成。第三章,從民事法角度分析虛假訴訟第一案存在違法成本過低、第三人撤銷之訴運轉(zhuǎn)不利的情況。從刑事法角度分析因刑法條文設(shè)置模糊導致虛假訴訟第一案若進行刑事判決,則會出現(xiàn)罪名和量刑幅度難以確定的問題。從民刑對接程序法角度分析,虛假訴訟第一案存在追訴程序和追訴機關(guān)未明確、刑事自訴制度缺乏規(guī)定的問題。第四章對虛假訴訟民刑對接后存在的問題作出思考并提出建議。
[Abstract]:With the development of our country's economy, the action of false litigation is becoming more and more serious, in order to restrain this kind of behavior which not only endangers the national judicial order, but also infringes the legal rights and interests of others. In recent years, our country has strengthened the attention to the false lawsuit type case, first stipulated the false lawsuit behavior in the civil action law which was amended in 2012, and then formally established the "false lawsuit crime" in the "Criminal Law Amendment (9)" in the 15 years'"Criminal Law Amendment (9)". In this way, in legislation, our country has completed the docking of civil punishment of false litigation. However, in substantive law and procedural law, there are still many imperfections in the regulation of this kind of behavior in our country. So that false litigation did not get the best regulatory effect. Through the analysis of "the first case of false Litigation", this paper discusses how to judge the first case of false Litigation under the angle of docking of civil punishment and the problems that may be encountered in the judgment, and makes some relevant considerations. " As the first case of false litigation confirmed by the Supreme people's Court of our country, "the first case of false Litigation" is like the horn sounded by the judicial organs of our country in order to maintain the judicial order and protect the judicial credibility, and it is a wake-up call for the false litigation. The actor of this case, Trevor Company and Opel Company, have filed a lawsuit with malice for many times, and the behavior of making up the relationship between creditor's rights and debts many times shows that the two companies' subjective vicious and malicious encroachment on other people's property amount is large. The "first case of false Litigation" developed by Opel and Trevor has been sufficient to satisfy the criminal constitution of the crime of criminal falsehood, but since the judgment in this case was a little earlier than the time when the Criminal Law Amendment (9) was issued, Therefore, the perpetrators of the first case of false litigation were not subject to criminal sanctions, which greatly reduced the demonstration significance of the case. To identify and analyze the legal principle of the first case of false Litigation is not only helpful to clarify the legal context of the case, but also help to dig into the value of the case-the value of the first case of false Litigation not only stays in the Supreme Law of our country. The first case of civil false litigation is reflected in the study of the regulation of false litigation after our national punishment through this case. Only by strengthening the regulation of false litigation, increasing the criminal cost of false litigation and unblocking the relief channels of outsiders in the case, can the probability of false litigation cases be reduced fundamentally, and the criminal law should be taken into account. To refine the relevant provisions of the crime of false litigation, from the point of view of procedural law, it is necessary to make clear the prosecution organs of false litigation and to establish civil and criminal docking procedures, so as to ensure that the private prosecution can make the perpetrators of false litigation subject to legal sanctions. From the first case of false litigation, this paper analyzes the dilemma of the legal regulation after the docking of civil punishment of false litigation in China, and puts forward some relevant suggestions. The first chapter, the introduction, introduces the purpose and significance of this paper and the basis of the topic. The second chapter introduces the case of the first case of false litigation, and determines the first case of false litigation from the angle of civil and criminal. At the same time, the first case of false litigation also satisfies the criminal constitution of the crime of false litigation. The third chapter analyzes the situation that the first case of false litigation is too low in cost and the third party is unfavorable in operation from the angle of civil law. From the point of view of criminal law, if the first case of false litigation is decided by criminal law due to the ambiguity of the provisions of criminal law, it will appear the problem that the crime and the range of sentencing are difficult to determine. From the point of view of civil and criminal docking procedure law, the problems of prosecution procedure and prosecution organ are not clear in the first case of false litigation, and the system of criminal private prosecution is lack of stipulation. Chapter four gives some thoughts and suggestions on the problems existing after docking of civil penalty in false litigation.
【學位授予單位】：延邊大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.1;D925.2

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 扎西;;防不勝防的虛假訴訟[J];檢察風云;2009年18期

2 李榮梅;;虛假訴訟刑法規(guī)制思辨[J];學理論;2009年25期

3 李翡;;虛假訴訟行為探析與整治[J];法制與社會;2010年01期

4 尉蘭琴;;試論虛假訴訟[J];隴東學院學報;2010年01期

5 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

6 胡蓓;;論虛假訴訟的刑事可罰性及司法應(yīng)對[J];法制與社會;2010年14期

7 薛瑋;;當前民間借貸虛假訴訟案件的認定與防范[J];法制與社會;2010年15期

8 畢慧;;論民事虛假訴訟的法律規(guī)制[J];浙江學刊;2010年03期

9 范水清;;淺談如何防范打擊虛假訴訟[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(中旬刊);2010年11期

10 梁婷;;民事虛假訴訟現(xiàn)狀及其規(guī)制[J];黔南民族師范學院學報;2011年01期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 本報記者 董小軍　本報通訊員 陳海濱 舒沁;警惕虛假訴訟的欺詐[N];寧波日報;2009年

2 本報記者 袁定波;修正刑法解決對虛假訴訟制裁問題[N];法制日報;2009年

3 江蘇省常州市天寧區(qū)人民法院 李霞;虛假訴訟現(xiàn)象亟待引起重視[N];人民法院報;2008年

4 本報記者 余建華　孟煥良;浙江 刑罰之劍指向虛假訴訟[N];人民法院報;2010年

5 本報記者 蔣萍　通訊員 吳祿嬋;虛假訴訟可能涉及十宗罪[N];文匯報;2010年

6 媒體評論員 劉英團;以刑事制裁應(yīng)對“虛假訴訟”[N];人民法院報;2010年

7 本報記者 白龍　張爍;多管齊下嚴打虛假訴訟[N];人民日報;2010年

8 黃廷旺　紀明龍;虛假訴訟的成因與防范[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2010年

9 本報記者 魯晟;虛假訴訟:民事到刑事的嬗變[N];民主與法制時報;2010年

10 記者 劉慧靜 通訊員 蒲華峰;虛假訴訟 緣何愈演愈烈[N];舟山日報;2011年

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前10條

1 張昕;虛假訴訟問題研究[D];蘇州大學;2010年

2 譚慧;虛假訴訟成因與對策研究[D];貴州大學;2009年

3 許勤;從司法角度看虛假訴訟的刑法規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學;2010年

4 項衛(wèi)兵;虛假訴訟行為的刑法規(guī)制[D];華東政法大學;2010年

5 郝元元;民事虛假訴訟研究[D];河南大學;2012年

6 王s，

本文編號：2373663