集资诈骗罪罚金刑替代没收财产刑问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-12 20:00

本文选题：集资诈骗罪 + 罚金刑　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：在经济飞速发展的大环境下,金融诈骗类犯罪也随之不断滋生。集资诈骗罪便频频出现在法院的卷宗之中。作为财产刑的两大支柱,罚金刑与没收财产刑均置于集资诈骗罪第三款之中,以备刑罚选择。在关于财产刑的争论当中,没收财产刑和罚金刑争论差异较大。一般来说,法律界关于没收财产刑的存废争议较大。关于没收财产刑废止的观点且得到大部分学者认同的理由就达7种以上,而罚金刑却争议较小。具体到集资诈骗犯罪中来,因为对于大部分集资诈骗犯罪分子来说,他们在被告发时,或者自己已经身无分文,或者自己早已转移、隐藏了财产。即便被判处了没收财产刑,执行财物的价值也远低于没收财产刑所达到的预期。判了罚不了的案件比比皆是。而罚金刑执行的灵活性则能很好地弥补这个空缺。所以,罚金刑在司法实践中的适用也明显优于没收财产刑。所以,对于犯罪情节达到“并处五万元以上五十万元以下罚金或者没收财产”的集资诈骗犯罪案件,没收财产刑的刑罚选择便有些画蛇添足。因而废除集资诈骗罪第三款的没收财产刑,让罚金刑取代它的位置也就势在必行。本文以浙江省2012年--2016年的集资诈骗犯罪案件相关数据为分析样本,通过数据分析和比较分析的方法来探寻集资诈骗罪没收财产刑的适用现状。接着进一步从没收财产刑的适用、执行以及在集资诈骗罪中罚金刑与没收财产刑判罚结果的同质性来分析罚金刑替代没收财产刑的必要性;随后从罚金刑和没收财产刑本质相同、罚金刑的操作性强以及罚金刑数额确定等三方面论述罚金刑替代没收财产刑的可行性;最后论述罚金刑取代没收财产刑的制度设想。如扩大罚金刑的适用范围、提高罚金刑的罚金数额、考量犯罪分子的经济状况以及提高减少、免除罚金刑数额的标准等。面对集资诈骗犯罪,预防固然很重要,但是严厉的国家制裁手段也是必不可少的。通过对集资诈骗罪中罚金刑取代没收财产刑的研究不仅能为立法工作提出些许建议,同时也可以对以后集资诈骗犯罪案件关于财产刑的取舍提供一些角度。此外,这还可以对没收财产刑存废的争议提供一些思路。
[Abstract]:In the rapid economic development of the environment, financial fraud crime also continues to breed. The crime of raising funds for fraud frequently appears in the court file. As two pillars of the property penalty, the fine penalty and the confiscation of property penalty are placed in the third paragraph of the crime of financing fraud for the purpose of penalty choice. In the debate on property penalty, confiscation penalty and fine penalty are quite different. Generally speaking, the legal profession about confiscates the property penalty to save or abolish the dispute is bigger. There are more than 7 reasons for abolishing the confiscation of property penalty and most scholars agree, but the fine penalty is less controversial. Specifically in the case of fund-raising fraud, because for most of them, when they were reported, they either had no money, or they had already moved and hid their property. Even if sentenced to forfeiture, the value of property enforcement is much lower than expected. There are many cases where no punishment has been handed down. The flexibility of the execution of fine penalty can make up for this vacancy. Therefore, the application of fine in judicial practice is obviously superior to confiscation of property. Therefore, in the case of a crime of financing fraud in which the circumstances of the crime have reached the level of "concurrently imposing a fine of not less than 50,000 yuan but not more than 500000 yuan or confiscation of property", the choice of penalty for confiscation of property will add to the picture. Therefore, it is imperative to abolish the confiscation of property penalty in the third section of the crime of financing fraud and let the fine penalty take its place. Taking the relevant data of the financing fraud cases in Zhejiang Province from 2012 to 2016 as the analysis sample, this paper explores the current situation of the confiscation of property by means of data analysis and comparative analysis. Then the application, execution and the homogeneity between the penalty of fine and the penalty of confiscation of property in the crime of financing fraud are analyzed to analyze the necessity of replacing the penalty of confiscation of property with fine. Then it discusses the feasibility of replacing the confiscation of property punishment with the fine penalty and the confiscation of property penalty from three aspects: the essence of the fine penalty and the confiscation of property penalty, the strong maneuverability of the fine penalty and the determination of the amount of the fine penalty; finally, the institutional assumption that the fine penalty replaces the confiscation of property penalty. Such as expanding the scope of application of fine, increasing the amount of fine, considering the economic situation of criminals and increasing the reduction, the standard of waiving the amount of fine, etc. Prevention is important in the face of fund-raising fraud, but tough state sanctions are also essential. Through the research on the penalty of fine instead of confiscation of property in the crime of financing fraud, we can not only put forward some suggestions for the legislative work, but also provide some angles for the choice of property penalty in the case of financing fraud in the future. In addition, this can also provide some ideas for the dispute of confiscation of property.
【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】：D924.3

【参考文献】