集资诈骗罪非法占有目的认定研究

发布时间：2018-12-14 04:22

【摘要】：改革开放以来,市场经济得到充分发展,各种经济犯罪也随之接踵而来并呈上升趋势。经济犯罪有着特殊的危害性,如集资诈骗罪,不仅破坏正常的金融管理秩序,而且侵犯公民的财产所有权。在司法实践中,集资诈骗罪是比较难以认定的,其行为结构复杂、注重内心事实,在认定过程中争议最大的是该罪的主观方面,也就是以非法占有为目的。司法机关常常对非法占有目的认定一筹莫展,之所以如此,是因为司法机关长期以来过于依赖和相信被告人口供,不善于根据客观事实判断被告人的主观内容。当根据客观事实得出的结论与被告人的供述不一致时,司法人员便无所适从。尽管当前我国立法对集资诈骗行为的规范有了较大进步,除了在刑法分则中单独立法,还有相关司法解释陆续出台,但在实务中的定罪量刑仍存在诸多争议。加之,此类行为涉及的犯罪案件影响人员众多、涉及的犯罪金额巨大、造成的社会影响重大、严重破坏我国金融管理秩序和侵犯公私财产所有权。因而,进一步考量集资诈骗行为中非法占有目的的认定规则,具有较强的理论研究意义和实用的现实意义。本文旨在为解决司法实践中集资诈骗罪非法占有目的认定的困惑聊尽自己绵薄之力。本文从四个部分对集资诈骗罪非法占有目的展开讨论。第一部分为集资诈骗罪非法占有目的概述,从刑法意义上的“非法占有”和非法占有的机能两方面加以阐述。首先,界定了刑法意义上的“非法占有”的内涵,区别于民法意义上的“非法占有”,其次,对集资诈骗罪中非法占有目的如何区分此罪与彼罪,罪与非罪加以详细论证。第二部分介绍了集资诈骗罪非法占有目的理论,主要是从非法占有目的在构成要件的地位和非法占有目的的域外比较两方面加以论述。指出非法占有目的在集资诈骗罪的构成要件中的地位,并对中外关于非法占有目的的各个学说加以梳理、评析,在此基础上,提出自己的观点加以论证。第三部分为集资诈骗罪非法占有目的司法认定。首先,对目前我国关于非法占有目的的司法解释逐一阐述,评价。其次,分析集资诈骗罪中非法占有目的的形成时间,肯定了集资行为前和集资行为中产生的非法占有目的,否定了集资行为后的非法占有目的。最后,论证集资诈骗罪中非法占有目的的认定标准。第四部分为从典型案例看非法占有目的的具体认定。选取了近年来影响比较深远的吴英案作为分析对象,并由此对司法实践中非法占有目的认定标准加以具体运用和分析,最后引申了笔者对当前我国民间金融的法律规制的反思。
[Abstract]:Since the reform and opening up, the market economy has been fully developed, and various economic crimes have followed and increased. Economic crime has special harmfulness, such as the crime of financing fraud, which not only destroys the normal order of financial management, but also infringes the property ownership of citizens. In judicial practice, the crime of fund-raising fraud is more difficult to identify, its behavior structure is complex, pay attention to the inner facts, the most controversial in the process of identification is the subjective aspect of the crime, that is, the purpose of illegal possession. The judicial organs often find it difficult to determine the purpose of illegal possession. The reason is that the judicial organs have relied too much on and believed the defendant's confession for a long time, and are not good at judging the subjective content of the defendant according to the objective facts. When the conclusion based on objective facts is inconsistent with the defendant's statement, the judicial officer is at a loss. Although the current legislation of our country has made great progress in the regulation of fund-raising fraud, in addition to the separate legislation in the criminal law, there are related judicial explanations, but there are still many disputes in the practice of conviction and sentencing. In addition, this kind of behavior involves a large number of criminal cases, involving a huge amount of crime, resulting in a significant social impact, serious damage to the financial management order and violation of public and private property ownership. Therefore, it is of great theoretical significance and practical significance to further consider the rules of determining the purpose of illegal possession in fund-raising fraud. The purpose of this paper is to solve the problem of illegal possession in judicial practice. This paper discusses the purpose of illegal possession in four parts. The first part is an overview of the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of fund-raising fraud, from the criminal law meaning of "illegal possession" and the function of illegal possession. Firstly, it defines the connotation of "illegal possession" in the meaning of criminal law, which is different from "illegal possession" in the meaning of civil law. Secondly, it demonstrates in detail how the purpose of illegal possession in the crime of collecting funds is distinguished from the other crime, crime and non-crime. The second part introduces the theory of the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of fund-raising fraud, mainly from two aspects: the status of the purpose of illegal possession in the constitutive elements and the extraterritorial comparison of the purpose of illegal possession. This paper points out the status of the purpose of illegal possession in the constitutive elements of the crime of fraud by raising funds, and combs and comments on the various theories about the purpose of illegal possession at home and abroad, and on this basis, puts forward its own viewpoint to prove it. The third part is the judicial determination of the purpose of illegal possession of the crime of financing fraud. First of all, the current judicial interpretation of the purpose of illegal possession one by one, evaluation. Secondly, the paper analyzes the forming time of the purpose of illegal possession in the crime of fund-raising fraud, affirms the purpose of illegal possession before and during the act of raising funds, and negates the purpose of illegal possession after the act of raising funds. Finally, the paper demonstrates the standard of the purpose of illegal possession in the crime of financing fraud. The fourth part is the concrete confirmation of the purpose of illegal possession from typical cases. This paper selects Wu Ying case, which has far-reaching influence in recent years, as the object of analysis, and then applies and analyzes the criterion of the purpose of illegal possession in judicial practice. Finally, the author rethinks the current legal regulation of folk finance in our country.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】