当前位置: 首页>博士论文>资源详情
虚假诉讼罪研究
中文摘要

诉权是公民享有的请求国家给予司法保护的权利,是法治国家赋予公民的基本权利,当民事权益受到侵害,民事法律关系发生争议时,当事人可以请求司法机关来保护其民事权益或者解决民事纠纷。然而近年来,滥用这项民事权利欺骗法院,利用司法裁判获取不正当利益,损害国家、集体或者他人利益的现象日益突出,对此,2012年《民事诉讼法》通过修订,将诚实信用原则写入其中,并对恶意串通通过诉讼、调解的方式损害他人合法权益、逃避判决或者裁定的执行的行为规定了民事强制措施,率先对虚假诉讼行为作出法律反制。 2015年出台的《刑法修正案(九)》设立了虚假诉讼罪,将虚假诉讼行为纳入刑法的打击范围,进一步加强其惩治力度。虚假诉讼罪设立之后,对于各类虚假诉讼行为按照本罪的规定追究刑事责任的案件逐渐增多,司法实践中罪名适用混乱的局面也得到一定程度的改善,虚假诉讼罪的规制功效初步显现。但与此同时,虚假诉讼罪规范本身以及司法适用中的种种问题也逐渐暴露出来。 本文第一章导论部分对本文的研究基础、主要内容作出简要介绍,例如选题的背景、价值目标、国内外的研究情况等,在此基础上交代了本文在既有研究成果基础上所提炼出的核心命题、得出的启示和作出的拓展,以便对全文内容作出全景式的把握。 第二章是对虚假诉讼罪司法适用现状的总体考察,通过对本罪增设以后两年多时间里,适用该罪名加以认定的实务案件的分析,总结出其中蕴含的一些裁判规则和存在的共性问题,从而引出本文的问题意识,确定重点的研究对象。通过梳理发现,本罪司法认定中罪名适用的不统一现象仍然存在,尤其是虚假诉讼罪与诈骗罪的适用,存在诸多不当之处,对公民财产权的保护存在弱化无力的现象;逃避合法债务型虚假诉讼的认定实践与理论不符;犯罪既未遂标准的确定有差异;犯罪情节的认定偏向保守,导致判罚普遍偏轻等等。很大程度上,司法人员对刑法第307条之一规定的理解存在偏差,由于虚假诉讼罪与诈骗罪等相关犯罪存在着一定的交叉关系,本罪的保护对象包括司法秩序与他人合法利益,体现出秩序犯罪与财产犯罪的双重属性,如何选择适用法条,存在一些疑难之处。虚假诉讼罪的处罚力度总体偏轻,司法解释依赖以及僵化理解法律明文规定造成实务中对情节严重均不予认定,而是均按照基本的规定进行处罚,导致处罚畸轻的现象大量存存。 第三章为虚假诉讼罪的规范解读,主要侧重于从教义学角度对虚假诉讼罪的规范要素进行解析,辅以实务案例的考察分析。虚假诉讼罪的构成要件行为之一是捏造事实,其包括作为和不作为两种形式,作为形代的捏造事实有编造全部事实与编造部分事实之分,编造部分事实的表现形式包括添加夸大事实、篡改部分事项、改变基础法律关系等,无论何种形式的编造事实,其行为均具有不法性和法益侵害危险性。但是,应当将编造事实虚构法律关系和伪造证据提高证明力等不法行为区分开,在民事法律事实客观存在的情况下为了证叫该事实的存在而捏造证据材料的,不属于捏造事实。捏造事实的判断标准有全部编造与部分编造区别说、对提起诉讼起决定性作用说与诉权标准说,诉权标准说以规制滥诉、打击虚拟诉权的规范目的为基础,但是存在不当缩小打击范围的弊端,实务中对捏造事实的认定采取了比较宽泛的标准,更有利于及时、严厉打击此类犯罪行为。隐瞒真相属于不作为形式的捏造事实行为,但其必须与作为形式的提起诉讼相结合才可以构成虚假诉讼罪。在诉讼的过程中当事人双方的法律关系因特定法律事实的发生而消灭,行为人隐瞒该事实利用诉讼程序的,同样属于捏造事实起诉的行为。虚假诉讼罪的实行行为是向法院提起诉讼,属于单数行为犯,捏造事实是对提起诉讼的描述,提起诉讼具有妨害司法秩序的危险,但尚不具有侵犯他人财产利益的紧迫危险,因此,处于此阶段中的虚假诉讼行为一般仍构成虚假诉讼罪,行为人申请法院强制执行时具有侵犯他人财产所有权的紧迫危险,可以构成财产类犯罪。妨害司法秩序与严重侵害他人合法权益是虚假诉讼罪的构成要件结果,两者既是本罪法定结果的规定,也是本罪侵害法益的体现。妨害司法秩序与严重侵害他人合法权益两种结果之间具有独立性。妨害司法秩序的规定表明了司法秩序法益的侵害危险性并非提起虚假诉讼行为所同时具备的属性,而是与危害行为分离的、需独立判断的规范要素。 第四章为虚假诉讼罪司法适用问题探究。本章主要涉及三个重要问题,一是侵犯财产型虚假诉讼的认定,二是虚假诉讼罪停止形态的认定,三是虚假诉讼罪的罪数形态分析。 侵犯财产型虚假诉讼罪的认定问题主要讨论了虚假诉讼行为构成诈骗罪、敲诈勒索罪以及盗窃罪的具体情形,虚假诉讼罪与上述罪名之间的关系。讨论重点放在虚假诉讼罪与诈骗罪的选择适用上,主要原因在于两罪的关系不仅在理论界具有较大争论,实务中法院的判罚也是差异明显。从理论层而看,因为虚假诉讼包括侵犯财产型和非侵犯财产型两类,无论是否非法占有他人财产或者侵犯他人财产性利益,捏造事实提起诉讼的行为首先齐备虚假诉讼罪的构成要件,可以按照虚假诉讼罪的规定定罪处罚,但是在非法占有他人财产数额特别巨大的情况下,按照虚假诉讼罪处罚则会出现明显的不妥。相应地,实务中的处理也较为混乱,总结发现,实务中大多优先选用新罪名虚假诉讼罪,如果非法占有他人财产目的实现的,以及非法占有他人财产数额特别巨大的倾向于认定为诈骗罪,很大程度上体现了量刑反制定罪的思路,但是也有不少反例存在。过度倾向于适用虚假诉讼罪的弊端是普遍存在处罚偏轻,与财产罪的处罚力度不对等的现象大量存在,而如果一概按照诈骗罪论处似乎又一定程度上导致虚假诉讼罪的虚置等问题。解决这种两难境况的可行做法是树立犯罪竞合意识,减少犯罪对立的思维,运用竞合理论使得上述难题迎刃而解。为了体现司法秩序这一公法益与私人财产这一私法益的平衡,加强对公民财产权的保护,实务中对于非法占有他人财产、侵犯他人财产所有权以及财产数额特别巨大的情形仍按照虚假诉讼罪认定的做法应当及时加以扭转。从刑法第307条之一第3款的规定来看,逃避合法债务与非法占有处于并列的位置,意味着逃避债务的虚假诉讼行为同样可能触犯诈骗罪。但是,实务中并无这种判罚,而是仍然认定为虚假诉讼罪,导致行为人逃避债务的行为损害他人财产利益数额(特别)巨大但处罚畸轻。借由三角诈骗、诉讼诈骗理论,可以将欺骗法院作出错误裁判而错误地确认债权债务关系的行为,理解为欺骗他人免除债务,从而认定行为人构成诈骗罪,方能确保这种损害他人债权数额(特别)巨大的侵财行为罪刑相适应。 虚假诉讼罪应当属于结果犯,虚假诉讼罪是行为犯、提起诉讼的行为完成即既遂的观点会导致既遂标准过于提前,犯罪中止的成立范围急剧缩小。刑事干预的前移会不当侵入民事违法的领域,导致《民事诉讼法》中规定的对虚假诉讼的民事制裁措施的适用空间被极大压缩。而如果将虚假诉讼罪视为兼具行为犯与结果犯的特征,会带来犯罪既遂标准上的矛盾,即一个虚假诉讼行为既是妨害司法秩序意义上的虚假诉讼罪行为犯的既遂,又是严重损害他人合法权益意义上的虚假诉讼罪结果犯的未遂。同时,由于严重侵害他人合法权益规定具有一定的冗余性和不协调性,宜将其从虚假诉讼罪的侵害客体中予以剥离,没有判断其既遂标准的必要性。虚假诉讼罪的既遂标志有法院受理说、作出裁判说以及占有财物说等几种观点,比较而言,将法院作出一审裁判,行为人获取生效的裁判文书作为本罪的既遂标志是比较合理的。在法院审理的过程中,主动撤诉或者供认罪行的,可以视具体情况认定为犯罪中止,减免其刑事责任,或者追究民事责任。这样既有利于鼓励行为人主动中止虚假诉讼行为,防止严重损害结果的发生,又照应《民事诉讼法》的相关规定,防止犯罪圈的扩大而挤压民事制裁措施的适用空间。 虚假诉讼罪罪数形态问题集中在持续犯、法条竟合犯、想象竞合犯以及牵连犯的判断上。虚假诉讼罪更符合持续犯的特征,这样有利于解决虚假诉讼罪的溯及力以及承继共犯的认定问题。虚假诉讼罪与诈骗罪、妨害作证罪在犯罪主体与犯罪客体以及行为方式等方面均存在较大差异,不具有静态的竞合关系,只有实施了提起虚假诉讼的行为时在动态条件下两罪才可能发生竞合。关于虚假诉讼罪的想象竞合关系与牵连关系的判断,不少论著存在简单地一概而论的倾向,经常不加区分地得出虚假诉讼罪与相关犯罪之间属于想象竞合或者牵连关系的结论,这种看法是对想象竞合犯以及牵连犯理论的滥用。有鉴于此,本文将与虚假诉讼罪同时出现频次较高、关系密切的重点罪名进行归纳细分,结合想象竞合犯中的“行为理论”和牵连犯中的“经验法则说”进行分析,梳理出与虚假诉讼罪分别构成想象竞合关系、牵连关系和数罪关系的罪名。 关键词:虚假诉讼罪;规范解读;司法认定

英文摘要

The right to sue is a basic right in the civil procedure law, which is also the fundamental right endowed by law in a country under the rule of law. When the civil rights were violated by the illegal action and the dispute occured on the civil legal relations, the parties have the right to request the judicial authority to settle the dispute. However, recent years, it’ s increasingly severe that the plaintiff abuse the civil right to deceive the courts and take advantage of judgement to harm the national interest、the public interest and the others benefit. Therefore, in 2012, the civil procedure law was amended and the article of principle of honesty and credibility was added in the code, meanwhile, the civil coercive measures was added which aimed at the malicious collusion to harm the others lawful interest or escape the execution of a judgment though filing a fraudulent lawsuit or mediation, and which is the first sanctions measures on the regulation of fraudulent lawsuit. In 2015, The Ninth Amendment of Criminal Code was passed, the action of filing a fraudulent lawsuit was criminalized, which reinforce the punishment on this illegal actions after the crime of fraudulent lawsuit was established, the criminal cases that applied this accusation was increased , the chaos situation in the judicial practice was relieved. Meanwhile, many difficult problems on normative application and judicial cognizance was emerged. Chapter one is the introduction on the foundation and main contents of the research , such as the background、the values and the research status of domestic and overseas, it present the core proposition and enlightenment basic on the documents now available, which is convenient to take a panoramic understanding on this research. Chapter two is review on the situation of judicial application, through the analysis of the criminal cases since this accusation was established, summing up the regulations and the problems of universality, which lead to the question consciousncss of this paper. By mean of the research and analysis carefully, it can be found that the dispute and inconsistence is universal in the judicial cognizance, especially on the application of fraudulent lawsuit crime and fraud crime; as a result of weakness on the protection of civil property rights; the proposal on the fraudulent lawsuit of escape lawful debt in judicial practice is not accordance with the academic theory; the standard of crime accomplished is in dispute; seldom did the circumstances of aggravation of fraudulent lawsuit be confirmed, which caused a light punishment. To some extents, the judicial official misunderstand the one of the 307th article of criminal code, due to the cross relationship of fraudulent crime and fraud crime, the crime of fraudulent crime embrace two objective of judicial order and civil property rights, which caused confusion on application of two crimes. Overall, the punishment on the fraudulent lawsuit present a light tendency, it might be ascribe to three critical reasons that the conservative attitude on the cognizance of circumstances of aggravation, the reliance on the judicial interpretation excessively, and rigid understanding on the explicit provisions of law, which caused the light punishment existence universally. Chapter three is the interpretation of the normative essential factors, it is concentrate on the dogmatics interpretation, and supported by the analysis on the criminal cases. The crucial factor of the perpetrating act of fraudulent lawsuit is fabricating factors, which embrace positive action and omission, fabricating factors include fabricating all of factors and fabricating part of factors, fabricating part of factors presented as exaggerate、 change the original legal relationship and so on, in any event, it is unlawful action and dangerous for the legal interest which the fraudulent lawsuit intend to protect. But its necessary to distinguish the action of fabricating factors and the action of forge the evidence material to promote proof power, when the dispute is actually existence, the perpetrator forge some evidence materials to prove it, it should not regard as fabricating factors. The standard of judgement on fabricating factors have three theories, which is distinguish fabricating all of factors and fabricating part of factors, having a crucial influence on the right of sue and the right of sue, the abstract theories difficult to have a perfect interpretation on the realistic circumstances, a broadly standard was adopted in the judicial practice, concealment of the truth should be a combination of conceal the truth and filing a fraudulent lawsuit. In the proceeding of the lawsuit, the basic legal relationship is terminated, but the plaintiff conceal this factor and continue to assert a claims which intend to benefit the unlawful interests, it still constitute fraudulent lawsuit. The perpetrating act of fraudulent lawsuit is filing a lawsuit to the court, which is singular act offense, fabricating factor is a describe of the perpetrating act, its not the dual behavior of fraudulent lawsuit. Filing a sham lawsuit threatened the judicial order but for the property right of others. Impair the judicial order and violate the lawful interests of others seriously is both the crime consequence and legal interest. They are mutual independent crime consequence. Impair the judicial order is not simultaneously occured with the perpetrate of filing a fraudulent lawsuit accomplished, it need to be judged independently. Chapter four is research of judicial cognizance on the crime of fraudulent lawsuit. Three crucial issues involved in this section, which is the cognizance of fraudulent lawsuit of infringement of property; the standard of fraudulent crime accomplished; the quantity of fraudulent lawsuit crime. The cognizance of fraudulent lawsuit of infringement of property is mainly discuss the specific situation which is constitute fraud 、extortion and theft, the relationship between these crimes and fraudulent lawsuit crime. The reason why concentrate on the appliances of fraudulent lawsuit crime and fraud crime is that the dispute not only exist in the academic realm, but also the judicial practice in chaos. From the perspective of academic, fraudulent lawsuit embrace two types which is infringement of property and non-infringement of property, both of them constitute fraudulent lawsuit crime firstly. But when the crime in an extremely huge amount, the contradiction would be emerged. Through combing of the judicial cases, the basic rules of application is when the perpetrator take possession of the others property or the crime in an extremely huge amount, its likely to be charged of fraudulent lawsuit crime. Thus, the paper argue that due to the specific crime of fraudulent lawsuit have been established, its necessary to take it as priority, its advantage for the identification and conviction of fraudulent lawsuit. Of course, take consideration that keep the balance between the public legal interest of judicial order and the private legal interest of property right, in the circumstances that the fraudulent lawsuit crime in an extremely huge amount, it should be convicted of fraud crime. According to the third clause of one of the 307th article of criminal code, filing a fraudulent lawsuit to escape the lawful debt is also could constitute fraud crime, but in practise, it always convicted of fraudulent lawsui t crime, which caused unreasonable phenomenon that the perpetrator escape lawful debt in an extremely huge amount, but the punishment is extremely light. This paper argue that it can be interpreted as fraud crime though the theory of “triangle fraud” . In this way, its possible to make sure the balance between crime and punishment. The crime of false litigation should be consequential offense, if regard it as a behaviour offense, Which caused the time point of accomplished crime was too earlier, the range of crime termination shrinked drastically, simultaneously, it caused to the space of civil coercive measures be squeezed seriously. It caused controversial on the standard of crime accomplishment. Supposing that regard the false litigation as not only behaviour offense but also consequential offense, It caused controversial on the standard of crime accomplishment that an action of fabricating factors charged of criminal attempt and criminal accomplished simultaneously. The symbol of false litigation accomplished has three theories which called accept and hear a case、 reach a verdict and appropriate the others possession, by comparison, we argue that its reasonable to take swindle the adjudication of first instance as the standard of false litigation crime accomplished. In the process of trial, the actor withdraw the claim of ones own accord and admit the guilty, it can be cognized criminal suspension according to the specific circumstances, and mitigate the perpetrator’ s criminal responsibility or exemption from criminal liability. Thus, its advantageous to encourage the perpetrators to stopped false litigation crime, and accord with the relevant regulations of civil procedure law, which prevent overextending of crime circle to crowd out the space of civil liability. The core issues of the quantity of crime of false litigation concentration on the judgement of continuing offence、 concurrent crime and implicated offender. False litigation accord with the features of continuing offence more, such viewpoint is helpful to solve the problem of retrospective effect and successive complicity. The perpetrator who participate in the crime after a false litigation was brought and before the judgement was given should be convicted of the successive complicity of false litigation, thus, its advantageous for settling the controversial on successive complicity of false litigation. The idealkonkurrenz is possible only under the condition that the false litigation was filled. Many contemporary viewpoint on the quantity of crime has a tendency to make sweeping generalization about it. These arguments was abuse of the theory of implicated offender without deeper thinking. Take this into consideration, this research pick up these crimes which closely related to the crime of false litigation, and make a detail classification, combination of the doctrine of “behaviour theory” and “empirical rules theory” , distinguish the imaginative coincidental offenses and implicated offense from these crimes. Keywords : Fraudulent lawsuit; Norm Interpretation; Judicial determination

作者相关
主题相关
看过该书的人还在看哪些书