非法经营罪兜底条款的理论解读及其适用

发布时间：2018-02-21 01:20

本文关键词： 非法经营罪兜底条款口袋化　出处：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：《刑法》第二百二十五条非法经营罪是1997年修订刑法时设立的罪名,它的前身是已经被废除的投机倒把罪。非法经营罪在近年来司法判决中被越来越多的用来规制侵犯市场经济秩序的非法犯罪行为,因此非法经营罪除了第一项针对专营、专卖及限制买卖物品,第二项针对经营许可证及批准文件,第三项针对非法经营证券、期货、保险或其他资金支付结算业务,第四项的条文内容是"其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为",又被称作兜底条款,即在司法实践中涵盖的非法行为过多,主要通过司法解释概括犯罪行为方式,由于颁布的司法解释越来越多,导致非法经营罪第四项兜底条款涵盖的违法行为越来越多,入罪口径在不断扩大,许多尚存在争议的经营行为均被以非法经营罪第(四)项兜底条款做入罪处理。因此,非法经营罪由于兜底条款一直陷入在争议当中。本文由两个具有代表性意义的典型案例入手引出兜底条款在现实判决中所引发的争议,并引出本文讨论的主题。将第(四)项兜底条款放回到法律条文中,由法律条文和司法解释阐述非法经营罪第(四)项的设置目的以及它运用到司法实践中所引发的争议,并对这些观点进行评述,引出学界和其他学者对非法经营罪在司法实践中的运用困境所持的观点。通过罗列司法解释的方式列举"其他非法经营行为"都包括哪些方面,指明非法经营罪第(四)项兜底条款在经济犯罪中涵盖的大概范围。由于非法经营罪引发争议的主要是其第(四)项兜底条款,所以在第三章着重介绍了兜底条款适用的一般性与特殊性以及兜底条款是否违背罪行法定原则,并由兜底条款引出"其他严重扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为"能否配合司法解释具体化。在进行兜底条款的法理解释后,再回到第一章引发讨论的两个具体案例,通过司法解释和法理讨论相结合的方式给出笔者对两个案例的观点与兜底条款在司法审判中使用的具体建议。本文仅仅采用案例与理论相结合的方式探讨非法经营罪第(四)项兜底条款存在的争议与困境,并希望通过理论验证的方式给出非法经营罪第(四)项兜底条款走出"口袋化"困境的具体办法。非法经营罪兜底条款陷入争议是长期存在的问题,许多学界的有名望的学者和司法界经验丰富的法官、检察官均对这一问题有自己不同的理解。笔者本人采集了多方观点并在本文中进行了罗列和评析。但由于笔者本人理论功底不够扎实,很多问题的探讨存在着许多不足,对于很多问题的理解也不够深刻。希望本人的这篇论文能够在非法经营罪兜底条款的理论解读及其适用上提出个人合理化的建议并被采纳。
[Abstract]:Article 225th of the Criminal Law was established when the Criminal Law was amended in 1997. Its predecessor is the crime of speculation, which has been abolished. The crime of illegal operation has been increasingly used in judicial decisions in recent years to regulate illegal crimes that violate the order of the market economy. Therefore, the crime of illegal operation, in addition to the first one, is directed against monopoly. Monopoly and restrictions on the sale and purchase of articles, item 2 for business permits and approval documents, and item 3 for the illegal operation of securities, futures, insurance or other funds for payment and settlement, The contents of 4th articles are "other illegal business activities seriously disrupting the market order", also known as the "bottom clause", that is, too many illegal acts are covered in judicial practice, mainly through judicial interpretation to generalize the criminal behavior. As more and more judicial interpretations have been issued, the number of illegal acts covered by 4th articles of illegal business crimes is increasing, and the scope of conviction is constantly expanding. Many of the operations still in dispute have been criminalized under item (4) of the crime of illegal business operation. The crime of illegal operation has been caught in dispute because of the bottom clause. This paper starts with two typical cases with representative meaning and leads to the dispute caused by the bottom clause in the actual judgment. And leads to the topic discussed in this paper. The article (4) will be put back into the legal provisions, and the legal provisions and judicial interpretation will explain the purpose of the establishment of item (4) of the crime of illegal business and the controversy caused by its application in judicial practice. In addition, the author comments on these views, leads to the views of scholars and other scholars on the dilemma of the application of illegal business crime in judicial practice. By listing the judicial explanations, the author lists the aspects of "other illegal business practices". Specify the general scope of item (4) of the crime of illegal business to cover in economic crimes. The main reason for disputes arising from the crime of illegal business operation is its article (4). Therefore, in the third chapter, the author mainly introduces the generality and particularity of the application of the "bottom" clause and whether the "bottom clause" violates the statutory principle of the crime. And from the bottom clause leads to whether "other illegal business behavior seriously disrupting the market order" can cooperate with the judicial interpretation concretely. After carrying out the legal interpretation of the bottom clause, we will return to the two concrete cases that have been discussed in the first chapter. Through the combination of judicial interpretation and legal theory discussion, the author gives the author's views on the two cases and the specific suggestions on the use of the bottom clause in the judicial trial. This paper only uses the combination of case and theory to explore the illegal practice. The disputes and dilemmas existing in the provision of item (4) of the crime, The author also hopes to give the concrete method to get out of the "pocket" predicament of item (4) of the illegal business crime by the way of theoretical verification. It is a long-standing problem that the bottom clause of the illegal operation crime falls into dispute. Many prestigious academics and experienced judges in the judiciary, Prosecutors have their own different understanding of this issue. The author has collected various views and made a list and comments in this paper. However, due to the lack of solid theoretical foundation of the author, there are many deficiencies in the discussion of many problems. I hope my thesis can put forward the suggestion of personal rationalization and be adopted in the theoretical interpretation and application of illegal business crime.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.33

【相似文献】