票据伪造法律风险分担制度研究

发布时间：2018-04-05 12:52

本文选题：票据伪造　切入点：出票伪造　出处：《吉林大学》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：票据是最早产生、最典型的有价证券，享有“有价证券之父”的美誉。自从票据产生以来，它在加快商品经济的发展及推动大规模的交易方面发挥了重要的作用。票据作为商业信用的载体，对于经济生活的发展起着至关重要的作用，甚至被称为“商业货币”。因为具有极强的流通性，票据已经成为当今经济生活中不可缺少的最佳的信用支付工具。然而，我们在充分认识票据对于市场经济发展的重要作用的同时，也应该注意到票据伪造行为也随之发生，利用伪造的票据进行的犯罪行为也在逐步增加。这不仅会对票据关系人的权利造成侵害，而且还会对市场经济的发展和金融秩序的稳定造成严重的阻碍。因此，世界各国都从立法层面对票据伪造行为进行了规制。本文在明确票据伪造法律内涵的基础上，在比较法的视野下，详细探讨了当今两大票据法体系国家对票据伪造法律责任及票据伪造风险责任分担的问题。在此基础上，，笔者对我国现行的票据伪造的相关立法规定进行了评析。在借鉴国外先进立法经验的同时，针对我国票据伪造责任及风险责任的分担提出立法完善建议。除绪论和结语外，本文主体部分分为五章。第一章，票据伪造的一般理论。本章首先探讨了票据伪造的法律内涵及其与相关概念的外延区分。关于票据伪造的法律内涵，日内瓦票据法体系和英美票据法体系的定义不完全相同，在我国票据立法中也没有明确的定义。票据伪造的法律内涵只是存在于学理研究中。笔者认为，票据伪造应该是指伪造他人签章、签名而进行的出票伪造和票据上签名的伪造。包括出票伪造和辅助票据行为的伪造。票据伪造最本质的特点应该是对票据签章的伪造。在明确了票据伪造法律内涵的基础上，本章还探讨了票据伪造与相关概念的外延区分。包括票据伪造与票据行为的无权代理、票据行为的代行、票据变造以及印章盗用等行为的联系与区别。从而得出票据伪造行为从性质上看，它不是票据行为，而是一种特殊的民事侵权行为。基于此，总结出票据伪造行为的认定和构成要件。第二章，票据伪造法律关系主体的法律责任承担。本章在明晰了票据伪造法律关系中法律主体的基础上，探讨了不同主体在票据伪造行为发生后，法律责任归属和承担的问题。其中重点探讨了票据伪造中，伪造人、被伪造人和付款人法律责任的承担问题。第三章，票据伪造风险责任承担比较研究。虽然在票据伪造的情况下，持票人、付款人、被伪造人和真正签章人都有权利最终对票据伪造行为人请求损害赔偿，但是当伪造人逃跑或者无力清偿时，这种请求权已经难以实现保护他们权利的作用。此时就会产生票据伪造风险责任分担的问题。本章中，笔者通过比较分析的研究方法，探讨了日内瓦票据法系和英美票据法系在票据伪造发生后风险责任承担及分担上的不同规定。在出票伪造的风险责任承担问题上，英美法和大陆法国家所持的主要态度是一致的，即都应该由付款人承担出票伪造所导致的票据伪造风险责任。只是在付款人发生错误付款时，在符合何种条件下，才可以转嫁这种风险责任的规定上存在见解不同。大陆法系通过契约的方式，而英美法系通过“禁反言（Estopoel）原则”、“追认（Ratification）”和“被伪造人（出票人）的过失”作为付款人承担风险责任的例外。但是在规定背书伪造的风险责任承担问题上，两大法系的态度迥异。其分歧的关键点在于，伪造背书可否造成背书连续的中断以及即使背书形式连续的情况下，票据权利可否善意取得。第四章，票据伪造追认对法律风险承担的影响。本章也是论文的创新点。本章探讨了在特殊的情况下,被伪造人可能出于一定原因的考虑，即使在明知自己的票据签名被伪造的情况下，被伪造人也会对伪造的签名予以承认，从而使复杂的票据伪造法律关系发生变化。在英美法系国家对于伪造的票据可以追认持肯定的态度。然而在大陆法系国家，一般情况下认为票据伪造行为不能够进行追认。在我国票据立法中，对票据伪造能否进行追认问题没有进行明确的立法规定。笔者主张票据伪造的行为在只对被伪造人的利益造成侵害的时候，是可以进行追认的。票据伪造追认是一种具有积极形成权性质的行为。票据伪造的追认是否具有溯及力，不能一概而论，应该根据伪造行为的违法性和被伪造人主观上对于伪造人责任追究的意愿而有所区别。在本章的最后一部分，笔者探讨了票据伪造追认对于相关当事人法律责任及风险责任归属的影响。第五章，我国票据伪造风险责任承担的立法现状与完善。目前，我国票据伪造风险分担方面主要适用的法律法规有《中华人民共和国票据法》、中国人民银行《支付结算办法》、《票据管理实施办法》及《最高人民法院关于审理票据纠纷案件若干问题的规定》。这些法律法规构成了我国处理票据伪造风险责任分担的框架。但是，在我国票据立法中并没有区分出票伪造和背书伪造的情形。而且我国现阶段的票据立法在付款人的付款审查义务的规定上，在持票人承担票据伪造风险责任上以及对于被伪造人的保护上都存在着立法的缺陷。针对这些立法缺陷，笔者在本章的最后，建议在我国今后关于票据伪造的相关立法中，应该借鉴国外的先进经验，完善我国的立法规定。
[Abstract]:The bill is the earliest and most typical securities, enjoy "securities" the father of the world. Since the bill has been produced, it has played an important role in accelerating the development of commodity economy and promote trade large scale. As a carrier of commercial credit notes, for the development of economy life is crucial the effect is even called "commercial currency". Because of its strong negotiability, the bill has become indispensable in today's economic life in the best credit payment instruments.
However, we fully recognize the important role of bill for the development of the market economy at the same time, should also pay attention to the forgery of bills behavior also occurred, criminal acts using forged bills has gradually increased. It will not only for human rights violations caused by bill relation, but also to the development of market economy and financial order cause serious obstacles. Therefore, all countries in the world from the legislative level of bill forgery conduct regulation.
Based in the clear notes forged legal connotation, under the view of comparative method, discussed in detail the two bill systems of forgery of bill forgery liability and responsibility and risk sharing problems. On this basis, the author gives an analysis on China's current forged notes. In reference to the provisions of relevant legislation advanced foreign legislative experience at the same time, to put forward legislative proposals to perfect our shared responsibility and risk responsibility of forgery.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the main part of this article is divided into five chapters.
The first chapter, the general theory of bill forgery. This chapter first discusses the extension of the forged negotiable instruments legal connotation and the distinction between related concepts. On the legal connotation of forgery, definition of Geneva bill law system and Anglo American negotiable instrument law system is not exactly the same, there is no clear definition in our bill legislation of bill forgery. The legal connotation existed only in theory research. The author believes that the forgery should be forged signature forgery of others, the signature and forgery and forgery bill. Including forgery and auxiliary bill forgery behavior. The most essential characteristics should be forged on the negotiable instrument. In the clear basis the legal connotation of the forged negotiable instruments, this chapter also discusses the extension of bill forgery and the distinction between the concepts. Including unauthorized agency and negotiable instruments act bill forgery, Bill behavior of such tickets According to the relationship and difference between alteration and seal stealing, it is concluded that bill forgery is not a note act, but a special civil tort. Based on this, we conclude the identification and constitutive requirements of bill forgery.
The second chapter, the legal liability subject of legal relation of bill forgery bear. In this chapter clarifies the legal subject in the legal relationship of bill forgery based on the discussion of bill forgery behavior occurred in different subjects, the legal liability and bear the problem. We discuss the forgery, forgery, forgery bear people the drawee and legal liability.
The third chapter, forgery risk responsibility undertakes comparative study. Although in the case of forgery of bill, the holder, the drawee is forged and real people have the right to the final signature of bill forgery behavior damages, but when people run away or unable to repay the forgery, this claim has been difficult to achieve the protection of their rights role. This will produce forgery risk shared responsibility. In this chapter, the author through the method of comparative analysis, discusses the Geneva bill law system and the Anglo American law system in the bill forgery after the occurrence of risk liability and the sharing of the different provisions. Bear at a forged risk liability, mainly Anglo American attitude law and civil law countries hold is consistent, namely should undertake by the payer forgery caused by forgery risk liability. Only in the payer 'wrong Payment by mistake, in line with the conditions under which it can exist on the specified risk responsibility on different views. The continental law system through the contract, and the Anglo American law system by estoppel (Estopoel) principle "," ratification (Ratification) "and" forged person (drawer) as the fault "the payer risk liability exception. But in the provisions of forged endorsement of the risk of liability issues, two legal systems of different attitude. The key point lies in the differences, can cause the forged endorsement endorsement and endorsement form of continuous interruption even continuous case, whether bona fide acquisition bill rights.
The fourth chapter of the bill forgery recognition of legal risk. This chapter is the innovation of this paper. This chapter discusses the special circumstances, may be forged for certain reasons, even in knowing that they are the endorsement forgery case, forged person will also be admitted to fake the signature, so that the complex forgery legal relationship change. In the countries of Anglo American law system for counterfeit notes can be ratified by the positive attitude. However, in civil law countries, generally think that counterfeit bills can not be ratified. Behavior in China's negotiable instruments in the legislation of bill forgery can not ratify legislation clear. The author argues that the behavior in the forged bill only to infringe upon the interests of the people to be forged, can be ratified. The bill forgery recognition is a kind of active form As the nature of the right to act. If the bill forgery ratification has retroactive effect, can not be generalized, should be based on counterfeit illegal behavior and forgery of subjective responsibility for forged person will differ. In the last part of this chapter, the author discusses the influence of bill forgery for ratification of legal liability and related parties the risk of responsibility.
The fifth chapter, China's legislative status and improvement of bill forgery risk liability. At present, there are laws and regulations > < People's Republic of China negotiable instrument forgery in China mainly for risk sharing, the people's bank payment and settlement Chinese < > >, < < measures for the implementation of administration of negotiable instruments and provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of disputes over negotiable instruments the case. These laws and regulations constitute the framework of responsibility and risk sharing forged bill processing in China. However, in China's negotiable instruments legislation does not distinguish forgery and endorsement forgery case. And the provisions of our present bill legislation on the obligation of payment in the review, the holder of bill forgery the risk of responsibility for the protection of people and forgery are the defect of legislation. According to these legislative defects, the author at the end of this chapter, suggestions on the future in China In the relevant legislation of bill forgery, we should draw on the advanced experience of foreign countries and improve the legislative provisions of our country.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.287

【引证文献】