我国刑法中洗钱罪认定问题研究

发布时间：2019-01-29 00:26

【摘要】：本次论文目的在于明确洗钱罪的构成要件,以期对洗钱罪的司法实践起到理论支撑作用,论文主体也是对构成要件各个要素的说明。洗钱罪于1997年独立成罪,并在过去的17年中不断发展。由于对洗钱犯罪了解的加深,以及洗钱行为本身随着经济社会的发展而愈演愈烈,我国多次以刑法修正案的形式扩充洗钱罪的上游犯罪,同时以司法解释为辅助对洗钱罪的构成要件的认定做出详细说明。但是对比国际公约和美国、德国的立法,各国在洗钱罪的主体、犯罪对象、主观方面、洗钱行为等规定各有不同,这归根结底是因为各国对赃物犯罪的本质认识不一样。因此在论文的第一部分,着重探讨洗钱罪的历史渊源和各国的立法现状,通过对我国和其他国家或组织的立法进行分析比较,以了解我国目前立法的不足之处和改善意见。论文的第二部分探讨洗钱罪的明知的认定问题。首先从总则和分则中提及的明知二字的区别入手,明确分则中的明知因为所在条文语境不同而应当具体问题具体分析。首先,分则的明知和总则的“明知”具有“第一次的明知”和“第二次的明知”的区别,洗钱罪的明知是对洗钱罪的犯罪对象的直观认识。其次,在明知的定义上,区分确知和应当知道。确知是明知的定义,表明行为人主观上是明确地知道自己行为的性质；应当知道,是在明知的认定过程中产生的一个概念,是指通过证据证明行为人在行为时的主观是应当是明知的。最后,对于洗钱罪的明知的认定,应当采取推定的方法进行证明。论文的第三部分是对洗钱罪犯罪客体和犯罪对象的说明。洗钱罪的犯罪客体应当包括司法机关的正常活动和金融管理秩序,洗钱罪的犯罪对象则是上游犯罪的犯罪所得及其产生的收益。犯罪所得中“犯罪”的定义,是指行为符合上游犯罪的客观方面构成要件,但是不要求主体适格,或者必须经过判决确定是犯罪。犯罪所得收益的范围应当是第一次将犯罪所得投入使用所产生的收益。最后,在洗钱罪的主体上,坚持洗钱罪的主体包括上游犯罪的本犯。并围绕这个观点,从司法实践需要阐明必要性,从刑法条文本身的解释和期待可能性理论等方面寻找理论基础,从量刑角度说明可行性。希望能够得出一个理论上有依据、实践上具有可操作性的本犯洗钱的定罪量刑体系。
[Abstract]:The purpose of this paper is to clarify the constitutive elements of the crime of money laundering, in order to play a theoretical role in supporting the judicial practice of the crime of money laundering, and the main body of the paper is also the explanation of the elements. The crime of money laundering became a crime of independence in 1997 and has continued to develop over the past 17 years. Because of the deepening of the understanding of the money laundering crime and the intensification of the money laundering behavior itself with the development of the economy and society, our country has expanded the predicate crime of the money laundering crime many times in the form of the amendment of the Criminal Law. At the same time, the judicial interpretation is used to explain the elements of the money laundering crime in detail. However, compared with the international conventions and the legislation of the United States and Germany, different countries have different provisions on the subject, the object, the subjective aspect and the money laundering of the crime of money laundering, which in the final analysis is due to the different understanding of the nature of the crime of stolen property in different countries. Therefore, in the first part of the thesis, the author focuses on the historical origin of money laundering crime and the legislative status of various countries, and analyzes and compares the legislation of our country and other countries or organizations in order to understand the deficiency of our country's current legislation and improve its opinions. The second part of the paper discusses the problem of the cognizance of the crime of money laundering. Starting from the difference between the word "knowing" mentioned in the general principle and the sub-rule, it is clear that the "knowing" in the subclause should be analyzed concretely because of the different context of the clause. First of all, the "knowing" of the subclause and the "knowing" of the general rule have the difference between "the first knowing" and "the second knowing", and the knowledge of the money laundering crime is the intuitive understanding of the object of the crime of money laundering. Secondly, in the definition of knowledge, the distinction between certainty and should know. Certainty is the definition of knowledge, indicating that the perpetrator knows the nature of his or her behavior subjectively; It should be known that it is a concept that comes into being in the process of cognizance of knowledge, which means that the subjective behavior of the perpetrator should be knowingly proved by evidence. Finally, to the money laundering crime knowingly cognizance, should adopt the presumption method to carry on the proof. The third part is the explanation of the object and object of the crime of money laundering. The object of the crime of money laundering should include the normal activities of the judicial organs and the order of financial management, while the object of the crime of money laundering is the proceeds of the predicate crime and the proceeds it produces. The definition of "crime" in the proceeds of crime refers to the fact that the act conforms to the objective elements of the predicate offence, but does not require the subject to be qualified, or must be determined as a crime by judgment. The scope of proceeds of crime should be the proceeds of the first use of the proceeds of crime. Finally, on the subject of money laundering crime, the main body of money laundering crime includes the crime of upstream crime. And around this point of view, from the judicial practice needs to clarify the necessity, from the interpretation of the provisions of the criminal law itself and the theory of the possibility of expectation to find the theoretical basis, from the perspective of sentencing to explain the feasibility. It is hoped that a theoretical and practical conviction and sentencing system of money laundering can be obtained.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.33

【参考文献】