上海“力拓案”的法理评析

发布时间：2018-03-03 09:58

本文选题：力拓案　切入点：国家秘密　出处：《湖南大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：2009年上海市国家安全局成功破获一起间谍案，涉案人员为澳大利亚力拓公司员工胡士泰、王勇、葛民强、刘才魁等四人，简称为“力拓案”。2010年3月上海一中院对该案进行开庭审理，对被告人胡士泰、王勇、葛民强、刘才魁判处了非国家工作人员受贿罪与侵犯商业秘密罪，数罪并罚。就非国家工作人员受贿行为的定性部分社会各界均无异议，而针对被告人采取利诱或其他不正当手段获取、刺探钢铁企业涉密信息的行为，从之前国家安全局定性的“窃取中国国家机密”间谍犯罪到最后法院认定为普通的“侵犯商业秘密罪”，该案的处理在法学理论界和实务界引发激烈讨论，焦点集中在胡士泰等人非法获取的信息是国家秘密还是商业秘密，以及在此基础上对胡士泰四人犯罪行为的定性问题。首先本文对“力拓案”的基本案情进行简要介绍，列举了学术界主要的三种争议观点，第一种观点认为胡士泰等人的行为触犯商业贿赂或侵犯商业秘密的相关罪名。第二种观点认为胡士泰等人应以涉嫌刺探、窃取中国国家秘密定罪量刑。第三种观点认为胡士泰等人非法获取中钢协无锡会议、南宁会议、北京会议以及66号文件的行为不应承担刑事责任。然后，笔者在“商业秘密”与“国家秘密”的概念辨析基础上对该三种学术观点进行分析，，指出三种观点所存在的偏颇之处。同时对司法定性相关因素进行详析，认为法院将本案定性为“侵犯商业秘密罪”具有其深层原因。最后笔者认为“力拓案”定性为“为境外窃取、刺探、收买、非法提供国家秘密罪”更符合我国刑法理论和现实国情。一方面因为被告人胡士泰等人的行为符合“为境外窃取、刺探、收买、非法提供国家秘密罪”的构成要件，符合我国刑法的基本理论和法律规定。另一方面因为该定性处理更符合我国严厉打击此类涉外企业商业腐败犯罪活动和保护我国国家经济安全的刑事政策。
[Abstract]:In 2009, the Shanghai Municipal National Security Bureau successfully cracked a spy case involving four people, including Hu Shitai, Wang Yong, GE Minqiang and Liu Caikui, employees of Australian Rio Tinto Company. "Rio Tinto case". In March 2010, the first Shanghai Central Court held a hearing on the case, and sentenced the defendants Hu Shitai, Wang Yong, GE Minqiang and Liu Caikui to the crime of accepting bribes and infringing on trade secrets by non-State workers, with multiple penalties. Regarding the qualitative nature of bribery of non-state functionaries, all sectors of society have no objection to the act of obtaining secret information in iron and steel enterprises by means of inducement or other improper means against the accused, From the crime of "stealing Chinese state secrets" as defined by the State Security Bureau before, to the fact that the court finally found the crime of "infringing on business secrets", the handling of the case has aroused heated discussion in the field of legal theory and practice. The focus is on whether the information obtained illegally by Hu Shitai and others is a state secret or a trade secret, and on this basis, on the qualitative analysis of the criminal behavior of Hu Shitai and his four men. First of all, this paper briefly introduces the basic facts of the Rio Tinto case. This paper lists three main controversial viewpoints in academic circles. The first view is that Hu Shitai and others committed acts related to commercial bribery or infringement of trade secrets. The second view is that Hu and others should be suspected of spying. The third view is that Hu Shitai and others should not be held criminally responsible for illegally acquiring the Wuxi, Nanning, Beijing and 66 documents of the Sinosteel Association. Based on the analysis of the concepts of "trade secret" and "state secret", the author analyzes the three academic viewpoints, points out the bias of the three views, and analyzes in detail the relevant factors of judicial qualitative analysis. Finally, the author thinks that the "Rio Tinto case" is characterized as "stealing, spying, and buying out of the country." The crime of illegally providing state secrets "is more in line with the theory of criminal law and the actual national conditions of our country. On the one hand, the behavior of accused Hu Shitai and others conforms to the constitutive requirements of the crime of stealing, spying, buying and illegally providing state secrets abroad." On the other hand, the qualitative treatment is more in line with the criminal policy of cracking down on the criminal activities of commercial corruption involving foreign enterprises and protecting the national economic security of our country.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D920.5;D926

【参考文献】