集资诈骗罪的司法认定及刑罚适用问题研究

发布时间：2018-08-22 13:45

【摘要】：随着近几年金融危机的爆发及蔓延，我国中小企业向银行融资变得越来越难，民间融资就成为中小企业解决资金短缺问题的重要途径。但是，随之而来的集资诈骗犯罪也呈现上升的趋势，，集资诈骗不仅侵害了财产所有权和国家金融管理秩序，而且一定条件下还可能酿成金融风潮，直接影响社会稳定。集资诈骗犯罪在我国多发的原因十分复杂，一方面与我国经济体制的负面影响有关，但更重要的原因还是由我国现阶段与金融相关的法制的不健全所造成的。在我国刑法理论界与司法实务界，对集资诈骗的罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的界限，对集资诈骗罪的罪数形态以及刑罚适用等问题尚存较大争议。有鉴于此，本文重点就集资诈骗罪在司法认定中存在的问题提出了一些观点，试图通过对本罪司法认定过程中有关问题的分析，以期为集资诈骗罪的司法实践提供一定帮助。笔者分三个部分对集资诈骗罪的司法认定和刑罚适用问题进行了论述。第一部分从实行行为、主体和责任形式三个方面对本罪的罪与非罪进行了认定。关于“诈骗方法”，笔者提出高回报率不是必要条件，诈骗行为和危害结果之间必须存在因果关系；关于何为“非法集资”，笔者认为“非法”应理解为实质上的非法，而不是形式上的非法，指出“社会公众”认定的范围不应扩大化；关于如何认定“数额较大”，提出应该以交付数额减去案发前行为人已返还的本息来认定本罪的犯罪数额。对“非法占有为目的”的理解，提出存在“间接故意”和没有“事后故意”。第二部分论述了集资诈骗罪特殊形态的认定问题。关于本罪预备犯、中止犯及未遂犯的认定，笔者认为在本罪的非既遂形态中，应当将未遂形态予以犯罪化，而预备和中止行为只需金融主管机关予以行政处罚即可。笔者从正犯、帮助犯和构成其他犯罪的集资诈骗案件行为人三个方面对本罪的共犯加以认定。通过对法条竞合、想象竞合的比较分析，指出本罪与其他近似罪的界限；进一步提出应按照重罪行为吸收轻罪行为的原则，根据案件的具体情况对牵连犯定罪论处。第三部分是集资诈骗罪的刑罚适用问题。指出本罪不应适用死刑的四个理由，建议通过引入倍比罚金制来完善罚金刑，阐述了司法实践中如何适用没收财产刑，提出对于本罪的主体，特别是单位主体，应当适用剥夺从事特定职业或行业的资格刑。
[Abstract]:With the outbreak and spread of financial crisis in recent years, it is becoming more and more difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises in China to finance by banks. Private financing has become an important way for SMEs to solve the problem of capital shortage. However, the following crime of financing fraud also shows an upward trend. The financing fraud not only infringes the property ownership and the national financial management order, but also may lead to a financial trend under certain conditions, which directly affects social stability. The reasons for the crime of financing fraud in China are very complex. On the one hand, it has something to do with the negative impact of our economic system, but the more important reason is still caused by the unsound legal system related to finance in our country at the present stage. In the field of criminal law theory and judicial practice, there are still some disputes about the crime and non-crime of financing fraud, the boundary between the crime and the crime, the number of crimes and the application of penalty. In view of this, this paper puts forward some points of view on the problems existing in the judicial cognizance of the crime of raising funds for fraud, and attempts to provide some help for the judicial practice of the crime of raising funds through the analysis of the related problems in the course of the judicial determination of the crime. The author discusses the problem of judicial cognizance and penalty application of the crime of fraud of raising funds in three parts. The first part determines the crime and non-crime from three aspects: the act, the subject and the form of responsibility. With regard to "fraud method", the author suggests that high rate of return is not a necessary condition, and that there must be a causal relationship between fraud and harmful results, and that the author thinks that "illegal" should be understood as "illegal" in essence, and that there must be a causal relationship between fraud and harmful results. The author points out that the scope of "social public" should not be expanded, and puts forward that the amount of crime should be determined by the amount of delivery minus the principal and interest returned by the perpetrator before the crime. On the understanding of "illegal possession", the author points out that there exists "indirect intention" and "no afterwards intention". The second part discusses the identification of the special form of the crime of financing fraud. As for the determination of the preparatory crime, the suspended crime and the attempted crime, the author thinks that in the non-accomplished form of the crime, the attempted form should be criminalized, while the preparation and suspension of the act only need the administrative punishment of the competent financial authority. The author identifies the accomplice of this crime from three aspects: principal offender, aiding offender and the perpetrator of the financing fraud case. Through the comparative analysis of competing articles of law and imaginative concurrence, the author points out the boundary between this crime and other similar crimes, and further puts forward that according to the principle that felony acts absorb misdemeanor acts and according to the specific circumstances of the case, the conviction of implicated offenders should be punished. The third part is about the application of penalty for the crime of fraud of raising funds. This paper points out four reasons why the death penalty should not be applied in this crime, proposes to perfect the fine penalty by introducing the double ratio fine system, expounds how to apply the confiscation of property penalty in the judicial practice, and puts forward the subject of this crime, especially the unit subject. The penalty of disqualification from a particular occupation or profession shall be applied.
【学位授予单位】：河北大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D924.35;D926

【参考文献】