金融诈骗犯罪的法经济学分析

发布时间：2018-04-21 23:11

本文选题：金融诈骗 + 法经济学　；参考：《山东大学》2007年硕士论文

【摘要】： 观察金融刑事法律的发展过程，可以发现：对于金融诈骗罪我国采取了重刑原则，并且当金融诈骗犯罪出现高发态势时，相应的惩罚就会加重。然而，重刑并没有取得预期的良好效果，金融诈骗犯罪仍然频繁发生。这样，就形成了一个困境：一方面是刑罚严厉程度不断提高，另一方面是金融诈骗犯罪日益增长。那么形成这个困境的原因是什么、如何突破，这是本文探讨的主要问题。犯罪决策是一个成本、收益的比较过程。刑罚的威慑效应即在于增加犯罪成本，对犯罪决策形成一种反动力，从而抑制犯罪。重刑虽然增大了犯罪成本，但却因为受其他因素的影响，使其威慑效应降低。通过分析发现，上述困境的形成与以下两个方面的原因密切相关：一是执法者的不作为执法，二是潜在犯罪主体对刑罚的心理认知水平。当作为的执法者和不作为的执法者并存于社会上时，执法过程中就会出现两种不同水平的执法：认真执法和假装认真执法。作为的执法者和不作为的执法者可能选择相同或不同的惩罚力度，不作为的执法者可以自由选择是否假装认真执法，由此造成了执法水平的不确定。结果是：只要存在执法者的不作为，整体执法水平就会偏离社会所要求的最优威慑水平，要么威慑不足，要么威慑过度，造成社会福利损失。我国的立法和司法制度存在不足以及执法者缺乏足够的金融诈骗犯罪执法能力是不作为执法的根本原因，可以通过完善我国的立法(司法)制度，提高执法能力的措施来解决。金融诈骗犯罪的犯罪主体虽然具有高智商和专业化的特点，但在决策过程中，仍然无法准确计算犯罪过程中的成本，更多的时候是依赖心理感知做出判断。不作为执法增强了犯罪主体对惩罚概率不确定的感受，从而会过高的估计自己不被惩罚的乐观结果，由此降低了刑罚的威慑效用。要消除潜在罪犯的乐观心理，关键在于加强执法的确定性。并且，，鉴于金融诈骗犯罪主体对财产刑和禁止从业、禁止参与金融业务的刑罚具有较强的心理感知，因此，在刑罚方式的选择上，建议使用财产刑和资格刑，自由刑应该作为有效的补充。
[Abstract]:By observing the development process of financial criminal law, we can find that our country has adopted the principle of heavy punishment for the crime of financial fraud, and the corresponding punishment will be aggravated when the crime of financial fraud is in a situation of high incidence. However, severe punishment has not achieved the expected good results, financial fraud crime still occurs frequently. In this way, there is a dilemma: on the one hand, the severity of the penalty is increasing, on the other hand, the crime of financial fraud is increasing day by day. So what is the cause of this dilemma, how to break through, this is the main problem discussed in this paper. Crime decision making is a comparative process of cost and profit. The deterrent effect of penalty is to increase the cost of crime, to form a kind of counter-motive force to crime decision, and thus to restrain crime. Although the heavy penalty increases the cost of crime, it is influenced by other factors, and the deterrent effect is reduced. Through analysis, it is found that the formation of these difficulties is closely related to the following two reasons: one is the law enforcement by law enforcement, the other is the level of psychological cognition of the potential criminal subject to the punishment. There are two different levels of law enforcement in the process of law enforcement: serious law enforcement and pretending to be serious law enforcement when the law enforcement of action and omission coexist in the society. The law enforcers who act and those who do not act may choose the same or different punishment, and the law enforcers who do not act can freely choose whether to pretend to enforce the law seriously, which results in the uncertainty of the law enforcement level. The result is that as long as there is omission of law enforcers, the overall law enforcement level will deviate from the optimal deterrence level required by the society, either the deterrence is insufficient or the deterrence is excessive, resulting in the loss of social welfare. The lack of legislation and judicial system in our country and the lack of sufficient law enforcement capacity of the law enforcement of financial fraud crime are the fundamental reasons for failure to enforce the law, which can be solved by perfecting the legislative (judicial) system of our country and improving the law enforcement capacity. Although the criminal subject of financial fraud crime has the characteristics of high intelligence and specialization, in the decision-making process, it is still unable to accurately calculate the costs in the process of crime, more often rely on psychological perception to make judgments. The omission law enforcement enhances the criminal subject's feeling to the uncertainty of the punishment probability, thus overestimates the optimistic result of not being punished, thus reduces the deterrent effect of the penalty. The key to eliminating the optimism of potential criminals is to strengthen the certainty of law enforcement. Moreover, in view of the fact that the subject of the crime of financial fraud has a strong psychological perception of the punishment of property and prohibition of employment and the prohibition of taking part in financial business, it is suggested to use property punishment and qualification penalty in the choice of penalty mode. Free punishment should be an effective supplement.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D917

【相似文献】