风险社会背景下网络借贷犯罪的刑法应对

发布时间：2018-05-01 20:36

本文选题：风险社会 + 民间借贷　；参考：《天津商业大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：“风险社会”概指当今世界正在从传统的工业社会形态转向一个后工业社会形态或一个风险社会形态。风险社会并非政治讨论过程中可以被接受或拒绝的一种抉择,风险已经来到,必须重视。我们无法否认,当前,我国社会存在着大量的发展性社会风险。对此,刑法应当作出系统性的回应。风险的变异性在网络借贷中一方面提高了资金使用率,激活了实体经济,缓解中小企业融资难的问题,增加了人们手中的可支配资金;另一方面风险也在异化网络借贷活动,使其潜在的犯罪性“日渐膨胀”。梳理规范借贷行为的法律法规,探究风险社会背景下法律规范对风险规制的立法趋向,现有刑法典中可以规制借贷犯罪的罪名共有11个罪名。在金融风险越益彰显的当今社会,利用互联网的金融交易风险显化出“防控不能”的特性。而现有的法律体系对网络借贷的规范很凌乱,具体到刑法规范中规制网络借贷的条款主要落脚于刑法第三章第四节破坏金融管理秩序罪之中。刑法谦抑性所体现的最后手段性与罪刑法定原则所要求的“明文规定”要求刑法在网络借贷中保持应有的克制,但这并不意味着刑法在网络借贷犯罪中不能为而是“有所为,有所不为”。针对网络借贷犯罪的特点刑法有两种选择路径:一是以刑法第174条、第176条、第225条规定的罪名规制“常态”的网络借贷犯罪,主要是“无资质主体经营从事网络借贷活动的犯罪行为”和“超越平台经营权限(服务范围)的犯罪行为”;二是以刑法第192条、第222条、第224条规制“变态”的网络借贷犯罪,主要是“非法集资行为”。在风险社会中刑法对网络借贷犯罪在上述两种选择中可以发挥打击犯罪的效能,但此种规制方式是对民间借贷刑法规制的借用,并不能精致、精确的打击网络借贷犯罪。风险社会对刑法提出的新要求便是“刑法触端前移”,在网络借贷犯罪的规制中刑法应当重视主观要素,刑法理论上应当认为故意不只是罪责要素而同时也是不法要素;应以推定的方式认定非法占有为目的,并探索在网络借贷犯罪中设立过失犯罪。刑罚也应作出适当修改:将“职业禁止”条款的规定变更为“资格刑”,使其附加在刑法第34条之中,作为一种附加刑;并将“剥夺政治权利”“驱逐出境”和“禁止令”纳入其中。统一罚金刑的适用,采用倍比罚金刑,单位犯罪中“直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员”应当适用与自然人犯罪时同等的刑罚,并且对单位犯罪的罚金刑应当规定合理的法定刑幅度。
[Abstract]:"risk society" means that the world is changing from the traditional industrial society to a post-industrial society or a risk society. Risk society is not a choice that can be accepted or rejected in the process of political discussion. We cannot deny that there are a lot of developmental social risks in our society at present. To this, criminal law should make systematic response. On the one hand, the variability of risk increases the utilization rate of funds, activates the real economy, alleviates the problem of financing difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises, and increases the disposable funds in the hands of people. On the other hand, the risk is also dissimilating the network lending activities. Make its latent criminal character "day by day bulge". Combing the laws and regulations of regulating lending behavior and exploring the legislative trend of risk regulation under the background of risk society, the existing criminal law can regulate the crime of lending a total of 11 charges. In today's society where financial risks are becoming more and more obvious, the characteristics of "prevention and control" can be manifested by using the financial transaction risks of the Internet. The existing legal system is very messy to the norms of network lending, specifically to the provisions of the criminal law norms to regulate network lending, mainly in the third chapter of the Criminal Law, section IV of the crime of undermining the financial management order in the criminal law. The last means embodied in the modesty of the criminal law and the "express provisions" required by the principle of legality require the criminal law to exercise due restraint in the network lending, but this does not mean that the criminal law cannot do anything in the crime of network borrowing. " In view of the characteristics of network lending crime, there are two kinds of alternative ways in criminal law: one is to regulate the "normal" network lending crime with the charges stipulated in articles 174, 176 and 225 of the Criminal Law. They are mainly "criminal acts of engaging in network lending activities by unqualified subjects" and "crimes beyond the scope of the operation of the platform (scope of services)"; second, articles 192, 222 of the Criminal Code, Article 224 regulates "abnormal" network lending crime, mainly "illegal fund-raising behavior". In the risk society, the criminal law can play the role of cracking down on the crime in the above two choices, but this kind of regulation is the borrowing of the criminal law regulation of folk lending, and it is not exquisite and accurate to crack down on the network borrowing crime. The new request of risk society to criminal law is "criminal law touch forward". In the regulation of network loan crime, criminal law should attach importance to subjective elements. In theory, criminal law should think that intention is not only the element of criminal responsibility but also the element of illegality. The purpose of illegal possession should be presumed, and the establishment of negligent crime in the crime of network borrowing should be explored. The penalty should also be amended as follows: the provision of "occupational prohibition" should be changed to "qualification penalty" so that it can be added to article 34 of the Criminal Code as an additional punishment; It also includes "deprivation of political rights", "deportation" and "prohibition order". The application of the unified fine penalty shall be equal to that of the natural person in the case of "directly responsible persons in charge and other persons directly responsible" in the case of unit crime. And the fine for unit crime shall be prescribed a reasonable legal penalty range.
【学位授予单位】：天津商业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】