高利贷行为的刑法规制
发布时间：2018-09-13 16:57
【摘要】：高利贷行为应否入罪、如何入罪,须依据我国现行法律和司法解释,在准确界定高利贷行为内涵的基础上,针对普通高利贷和暴利贷两种不同类型,从形式层面进行民事、行政和刑事的违法性判断,从实质层面进行公平、自由与效率的价值评价和选择,以寻求高利贷行为入罪的正当根据。普通高利贷具有民事违法性,刑法不宜介入,但可追究催讨强索高利贷等衍生行为的刑事责任;暴利贷属于从事非法金融业务活动的行为,具有行政违法性,但并不符合非法经营罪中"违反国家规定"的前置法条件,因而不构成非法经营罪,但可通过对催讨强索等高利贷衍生行为的刑法认定,追究高利贷者直接实行或参与实施相关犯罪的刑事责任。
[Abstract]:Whether or not usury should be incriminated, and how to incriminate, according to the current law and judicial interpretation of our country, on the basis of accurately defining the connotation of usury, and aiming at two different types of usury, ordinary usury and profiteering loan, civil affairs should be carried out from the formal level. To judge the illegality of administration and criminal law, we should evaluate and choose the value of fairness, freedom and efficiency from the substantive level, in order to seek the proper basis for the crime of usury. Ordinary usury has civil illegality, criminal law should not intervene, but it can be investigated for criminal liability for derivative behavior such as strong loan usury. Profiteering loan is an act of engaging in illegal financial business and has administrative illegality. However, it does not meet the conditions of "violating the state regulations" in the crime of illegal operation, and therefore does not constitute the crime of illegal operation. However, it can be recognized by the criminal law of usury derivative such as demanding strong claims. To investigate the criminal liability of loan sharks who directly commit or participate in the commission of related crimes.
【作者单位】： 华东政法大学研究生教育院;
【基金】：国家社科基金重大招标项目“涉信息网络违法犯罪行为法律规制研究”(14ZDB147) 上海市哲学社会科学规划项目“信息网络技术服务的刑事规制研究”(2016) 上海市高校一流学科(华东政法大学刑法学)建设计划项目
【分类号】：D924.3
本文编号：2241784
[Abstract]:Whether or not usury should be incriminated, and how to incriminate, according to the current law and judicial interpretation of our country, on the basis of accurately defining the connotation of usury, and aiming at two different types of usury, ordinary usury and profiteering loan, civil affairs should be carried out from the formal level. To judge the illegality of administration and criminal law, we should evaluate and choose the value of fairness, freedom and efficiency from the substantive level, in order to seek the proper basis for the crime of usury. Ordinary usury has civil illegality, criminal law should not intervene, but it can be investigated for criminal liability for derivative behavior such as strong loan usury. Profiteering loan is an act of engaging in illegal financial business and has administrative illegality. However, it does not meet the conditions of "violating the state regulations" in the crime of illegal operation, and therefore does not constitute the crime of illegal operation. However, it can be recognized by the criminal law of usury derivative such as demanding strong claims. To investigate the criminal liability of loan sharks who directly commit or participate in the commission of related crimes.
【作者单位】： 华东政法大学研究生教育院;
【基金】：国家社科基金重大招标项目“涉信息网络违法犯罪行为法律规制研究”(14ZDB147) 上海市哲学社会科学规划项目“信息网络技术服务的刑事规制研究”(2016) 上海市高校一流学科(华东政法大学刑法学)建设计划项目
【分类号】：D924.3
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前6条
1 何勇;谈谈高利贷问题[J];河北法学;1987年02期
2 耿景仪;;以刑法武器惩治高利贷犯罪的建议[J];法律学习与研究;1990年03期
3 韩伟;;论高利贷行为的刑法规制[J];市场周刊(理论研究);2011年11期
4 吴波;郭大磊;;对高利贷行为的犯罪学思考[J];犯罪研究;2013年05期
5 赵进一;;法槌重击高利贷[J];检察风云;2011年08期
6 张素敏;王淑华;;高利贷活动引发不稳定问题的调研报告[J];中国检察官;2014年03期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 秦正发;高利贷的刑法规制研究[D];西南财经大学;2014年
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 方益花;高利贷犯罪问题研究[D];昆明理工大学;2015年
2 李国栋;论增设高利贷罪[D];广东财经大学;2013年
，本文编号：2241784
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingfalunwen/2241784.html
