背信犯罪比较研究

发布时间：2018-09-17 17:24

【摘要】： 目前,我国正处于经济的高速发展期和市场的转轨期,一些侵犯公私财产权和破坏市场有序发展的背信行为屡见不鲜。然而,我国现行刑事立法在规制这些背信行为上却存在一些缺陷和不足,常常会力不从心。另外,我国学者对背信犯罪的理解也不统一,对背信行为的认识仍存在偏差,对一些不是背信行为的违法行为却建议立法机关增设背信罪予以规制。这些现象反映了我国在背信犯罪的理论研究上存在严重的不足,从而导致背信犯罪立法上的滞后。德国和日本是背信罪理论学说和立法经验最丰富的两个国家,因此,研究德日典型背信罪的立法现状以及相关学说,分析我国背信犯罪的立法现状,深入比较我国背信犯罪与德日典型背信罪的异同,有助于我们正确理解背信罪和背信行为的内涵、寻求背信犯罪的本质、充分认识我国背信犯罪的不足,这对提高我国背信犯罪研究的理论水平和完善我国背信犯罪的立法都具有十分重要的意义。本文共分导言、主体和结语三部分。导言部分重点阐述了本文的选题背景和研究意义、背信犯罪相关问题的研究现状和不足之处,以及本文的创新和不足。由于我国现有刑事立法规制背信行为的不足和少数学者对背信犯罪的理解偏差,使得当前进行我国背信犯罪与德日背信罪的比较研究具有十分重要的现实意义。然而,我国目前对背信犯罪的理论研究却主要局限于简单地介绍德日背信罪的立法现状和相关学说,没有对背信罪的内涵以及背信行为与其他债务不履行行为的区分做深入分析;对背信损害上市公司利益罪和背信运用受托财产罪的研究也仅限于它们本身的犯罪构成要件分析和司法认定上,没有提出我国背信犯罪的本质学说,也缺乏对我国背信犯罪与德日背信罪的系统比较研究。因此,有必要通过对德日背信罪的立法背景、立法沿革和现行立法的研究来进一步阐述背信罪的内涵,合理区分背信行为与一般债务不履行行为的不同,正确理解背信罪的本质,并在此基础上,对比研究我国背信犯罪与德日背信罪的异同,以期对我国背信犯罪的立法完善提出相应的对策。本文主体部分共分为五章。第一章“背信罪概论”是对背信罪的整体介绍。本章首先对背信罪的基本结构、我国少数学者对背信罪的误解以及背信罪的罪名选择进行了详细的分析;并在此基础上,从纵向的时间轴上,对背信罪的萌芽和形成进程及背信罪产生的原因和基础进行了完整的阐述,从而为正确理解背信罪的内涵奠定了基础;此外,本章从横向的空间轴上,对目前世界上没有规定背信罪以及规定了背信罪的其他国家和地区的立法进行了详细的介绍,为下文的比较研究埋下伏笔。第二章“德日典型背信罪之研究”对德国和日本背信罪的现行立法进行了深入的分析和研究。“德国背信罪的现行立法研究”从德国刑法第266条的规定出发,将德国背信行为的犯罪构成要件分为两类,一是滥权构成要件;二是背托构成要件。根据德国学界的通说,符合滥权构成要件的犯罪行为是指行为人逾越内部信任关系的许可,而行使外部法律权限的行为,因此,权限滥用行为必须符合“对外性”和“法律行为”这两个条件。背托构成要件所规制的犯罪行为是指行为人违反财产管理义务的行为。这一范围相当宽泛,并不要求背信行为具有对外性,也不要求它是法律行为。然而,不管是滥权构成要件还是背托构成要件,都必须以造成本人财产损害作为背信罪成立的前提。“日本背信罪的现行立法研究”从日本刑法第247条的规定出发,对背信罪的犯罪成立条件中的主体、行为、主观目的、财产损失的结果等要素进行分析。背信罪属于身份犯,其主体限于“为他人处理事务的人”。所谓为他人处理事务,是指为了他人处理他人的事务。所以,如果是自己的事务,即使是为了他人而处理,也不符合本罪的构成要件,这实际上也涉及到背信行为与一般债务不履行行为的区分。团藤重光博士在总结何谓他人的事务时,提出了“对内的关系”和“对向性关系”的概念,但却没有给出明确的定义和解释。此外,日本的背信罪还要求主体以为自己或第三人谋取利益为目的,或者出于对本人造成损害的目的实施违背任务的行为,给本人造成财产上的损失。本文的第三章“我国背信犯罪的立法现状”则从我国刑事立法实际出发,分析和研究了我国背信犯罪的现状。我国1979年刑法和1997年刑法没有对普通的背信罪作出规定,直到2006年通过的《刑法修正案(六)》才规定了两个特殊的背信犯罪,一个是背信损害上市公司利益罪,另一个则是背信运用受托财产罪。故本章分为两节,第一节“背信损害上市公司利益罪”介绍了该罪的立法背景、研究和分析了有关该罪的罪名争议,从而得出笔者的观点:“背信损害上市公司利益罪”这一罪名不仅表达简洁、通俗、科学、合理,而且准确揭示了“背信”本质,并反映了“损害”这一核心要素,因而该罪名能全面反映本罪的外延和相关界限,有利于罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的界定和区分。此外,本节还从主体要件、主观要件、客观要件以及犯罪客体等方面对背信损害上市公司利益罪进行分析研究,全面把握背信损害上市利益罪的犯罪构成要件。第二节“背信运用受托财产罪”介绍了该罪的立法背景,研究和分析了该罪的犯罪构成要件,从主体要件、主观要件、客观要件以及犯罪客体等方面整体把握背信损害上市公司利益罪的犯罪构成要件。第四章“我国背信犯罪与德日典型背信罪的比较”是全文的重点所在,在前文的论述基础上,分别从背信犯罪的本质和犯罪成立要件两个方面对两者进行对比研究。德国和日本学术界对于背信罪的本质一直存在较大争议,比较有代表性的观点有滥用权限说、背信说、背信的滥用权限说、内部信任关系说等等。而我国的两个背信犯罪将“背信”的意义限定在“违背忠实义务”和“违背受托义务”上面,这对认识背信犯罪的本质提供了立法依据和新的思路。笔者通过比较分析,认为背信说从违反信任关系造成财产的损害角度揭示了背信罪的本质,具有正确合理的内核,但如果无限定地理解作为背信行为前提的信任关系这一极为抽象的概念,将会使背信罪的界限变得模糊,不利于背信行为与一般债务不履行行为的区分。日本团藤重光博士曾提出“对内关系(内部关系)”与“对向性关系”的区分标准,但未能明确它们的内涵。笔者在综合比较研究的基础上,提出了自己的关于“对内的关系(内部关系)”和“对向性关系”的见解。对内的关系,指的是行为人作为本人处理相关事务的延伸体,与本人之间形成内部的信任关系。两者在该事务的处理上,是作为同一当事方出现的。行为人的行为指向的是第三方,或者不特定的相对方,但绝对不能指向本人。而对向性关系,则是指双方互为行为相对人的关系,他们不是作为同一当事方,而是作为不同的相对方出现的。行为人的行为指向的是本人。以此种“内部关系”的见解为依托,笔者进一步提出了关于背信犯罪本质的新观点“事务处理的内部信任关系说”:背信犯罪的本质是事务处理活动过程中的受托主体违背与本人之间的内部信任关系,未能从本人的最大利益出发为其处理事务,而导致本人财产损害的财产性犯罪行为。另外,本文第四章也对我国背信犯罪与德日背信罪的犯罪成立要件进行了比较研究。通过对比,笔者发现它们既有相同之处,又各有自己的特色。首先,从主体上看,我国背信犯罪与德日典型背信罪都是身份犯,其主体都是特殊主体,都是“为他人处理事务之人”。但我国的两个背信犯罪中,背信损害上市公司利益罪既包括自然人犯罪,也包括单位犯罪;背信运用受托财产罪则只能是单位犯罪。而德国背信罪的主体只能是自然人犯罪,不能是单位或法人犯罪。并且,从主体的涵盖范围看,我国两个背信犯罪的主体涵盖范围还不如德国背信罪主体的涵盖范围大。其次,从客观方面看,我国的背信犯罪与德日背信罪都是主体实施的违背信任的行为,都是财产性犯罪。但我国背信犯罪与德日背信罪所包含的“背信”的具体含义不同,行为的涵盖范围也不同。并且,德国和日本的背信罪都是结果犯,以造成本人的财产损失为必要。我国的背信损害上市公司利益罪也是结果犯,以造成上市公司重大损失为犯罪成立要件;但背信运用受托财产罪却是情节犯,以“情节严重”为要件。再次,从主观方面看,日本的背信罪,在主观上除了必须出自故意之外,还必须意图为自己或第三人谋取利益获取给本人造成损害,即具有图利或加害目的,是目的犯。而德国背信罪与我国的两个特殊背信犯罪都没有此种目的上的特殊要求,不是目的犯。最后,从犯罪客体或保护的法益来看,背信损失上市公司利益罪侵犯的是双重客体,不仅妨碍了公司、企业的管理秩序,也同时侵犯了上市公司的财产权。背信运用受托财产罪侵犯的是简单客体,即破坏了金融管理秩序。而德国和日本的背信罪所保护的法益则是本人的财产权。通过上述比较研究,可以发现,我国的背信犯罪在主体、行为等方面比德日背信罪的范围规定得要窄,在规制一般的背信行为时,出现了一些力不从心的情况。基于上述结论,本文第五章提出了完善我国背信犯罪的立法建议。本章首先论证了我国增设普通背信罪的必要性和可行性,并提出了我国增设背信罪的模式及路径构想、背信罪犯罪构成要件以及背信罪刑事处罚的设置构想。同时,现有的两个背信犯罪由于其规制主体的特殊性,在实践中仍然有存在的必要,从而与新增设的背信罪形成特别法与普通法的法条竞合关系。当然,这两个特殊的背信犯罪在主体范围、行为方式以及情节结果等方面还存在一些不足之处,应当适当改进,予以完善。对于背信损害上市公司利益罪,笔者建议增加违法分红的行为样态,作为行为方式之六,即“违反公司法规定分配利润或股本金的”;对于背信运用受托财产罪,笔者建议增设自然人犯罪主体,并取消背信运用受托财产罪的“情节严重”的情节要件,增加“致使客户遭受重大损失”的结果要件。本文第三部分是结语。在对上文主体部分进行研究和分析的基础上,结语部分对笔者的主要观点和研究结论进行了集中的梳理。第一,笔者首次明确了作为区分“他人的事务”与“自己的事务”以及背信行为与一般债务不履行行为标准的“对内的关系(内部关系)”与“对向性关系”的具体内涵。这样就能通过判别行为人与本人之间的关系是属于“内部关系”还是“对向性关系”,来判断行为人的行为是否构成背信行为。换而言之,“对内的关系(内部关系)”与“对向性关系”的明确使得背信罪的内涵和范围变得清晰可见。第二,笔者通过比较研究德日背信罪的诸多本质学说以及我国背信犯罪中的背信本质,吸收背信说的合理内核,提出背信犯罪本质的新观点“事务处理的内部信任关系说”,即背信犯罪的本质是事务处理活动过程中的受托主体违背与本人之间的内部信任关系,未能从本人的最大利益出发为其处理事务,而导致本人财产损害的财产性犯罪行为。第三,笔者在比较分析我国背信犯罪与德日背信罪的犯罪构成要件的基础上,提出了我国背信犯罪立法的完善建议。笔者建议我国增设一个普通的背信罪,对严重的背信行为予以普遍性的规制。同时,现有的两个背信犯罪由于其规制主体的特殊性,在实践中仍然有存在的必要,从而与新增设的背信罪形成特别法与普通法的法条竞合关系。当然,这两个特殊的背信犯罪在主体范围、行为方式以及情节结果等方面还存在一些不足的地方,应当适当改进,予以完善。
[Abstract]:At present, our country is in the period of rapid economic development and market transition, some violations of public and private property rights and damage to the orderly development of the market betrayal behavior is common. Understanding of the breach of faith is not uniform, there are still some deviations in the understanding of the breach of faith, and some illegal acts are not breach of faith but proposed to legislature to set up the crime of breach of faith to be regulated. These phenomena reflect that China's theoretical research on the crime of breach of trust is seriously inadequate, resulting in the legislative lag of the crime of breach of trust. Therefore, it is helpful for us to understand the connotation of the crime of betrayal and the act of betrayal correctly by studying the legislative status quo and related theories of the typical crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan, analyzing the legislative status quo of the crime of betrayal in China, and comparing the similarities and differences between the crime of betrayal in China and the typical crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. The essence of the crime of betrayal and the insufficiency of the crime of betrayal in China are of great significance to the improvement of the theoretical level of the study of the crime of betrayal and the perfection of the legislation of the crime of betrayal in China.
This article is divided into three parts: the introduction, the main body and the conclusion. The introduction focuses on the background and significance of the topic, the research status and deficiencies of the crime of betrayal, as well as the innovation and deficiencies of this article. It is of great practical significance to make a comparative study of the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. The research on the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies and the crime of using trusted property by betrayal is also limited to the analysis of their own constitutive elements and judicial cognizance, without putting forward the essential theory of the crime of betrayal in China, and lacking the systematic comparative study on the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. Therefore, it is necessary to further elaborate the connotation of the crime of betrayal through the study of the legislative background, legislative evolution and current legislation of the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan, to rationally distinguish the difference between the act of betrayal and the act of non-performance of general debts, to correctly understand the nature of the crime of betrayal, and on this basis, to study the similarities and differences between the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany In order to put forward corresponding countermeasures for perfecting the legislation of breach of trust in China.
The main part of this article is divided into five chapters.The first chapter is the introduction of the crime of betrayal.Firstly, this chapter analyzes the basic structure of the crime of betrayal, the misunderstanding of the crime of betrayal by a few scholars in our country and the choice of the crime of betrayal in detail.On this basis, from the vertical time axis, the germination and the crime of betrayal. The forming process and the causes and foundation of the crime of betrayal are expounded in detail, which lays the foundation for a correct understanding of the connotation of the crime of betrayal. In addition, this chapter gives a detailed introduction to the legislation of other countries and regions which have not stipulated the crime of betrayal in the world and have stipulated it from the horizontal space axis. Comparative study foreshadowed.
Chapter 2 "Research on the typical crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan" makes a thorough analysis and Study on the current legislation of the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. According to the general theory of German academic circles, the criminal act that conforms to the constitutive requirements of abuse of power refers to the act of the actor's exceeding the permission of internal trust and exercising external legal authority. Therefore, the abuse of power must conform to the two conditions of "externality" and "legal act". This scope is quite broad, does not require that the act of breach of trust has externality, nor does it require that it is a legal act. However, whether it is abuse of power or backing constitutive elements, must cause damage to their property as the premise of the crime of breach of trust. From the article 247 of the Japanese Criminal Law, this article analyzes the subject, behavior, subjective purpose and the result of property loss in the condition of the establishment of the crime of betrayal. Therefore, if it is one's own business, even if it is dealt with for the sake of others, it does not conform to the constitutive requirements of this crime, which actually involves the distinction between breach of faith and general non-performance of debt. In addition, the crime of betrayal in Japan requires the subject to act in violation of his duty for the purpose of seeking the interests of himself or a third person, or for the purpose of causing damage to himself or herself, resulting in loss of property.
In the third chapter of this article, "the legislative status quo of the crime of breach of faith in our country" proceeds from the actual criminal legislation of our country, analyzes and studies the present situation of the crime of breach of faith in our country. One is the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies, the other is the crime of betraying the use of trusted property.Therefore, this chapter is divided into two sections.The first section introduces the legislative background of the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies, studies and analyzes the disputes about the crime, and draws the author's view: "the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies to harm the interests of listed companies." "This charge not only expresses concisely, popular, scientific and reasonable, but also accurately reveals the essence of"betrayal"and reflects the core element of"damage", so the charge can fully reflect the extension and related boundaries of the crime, which is conducive to the definition and distinction between the crime and the non-crime. In addition, this section also from the main elements, subjective elements. The second section introduces the legislative background of the crime of betraying the use of trusted property, studies and analyzes the constitutive elements of the crime from the main elements and subjective aspects. We should grasp the constitutive elements of the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies as a whole in terms of the important elements, the objective elements and the object of the crime.
Chapter IV "Comparison of the Crime of Breach of Faith in China and the Typical Crime of Breach of Faith in Germany and Japan" is the focus of the full text. On the basis of the previous discussion, the author makes a comparative study on the two aspects of the nature of the crime of breach of faith and the elements of its establishment. There are abuse of authority theory, breach of trust theory, abuse of authority theory, internal trust relationship theory and so on. However, the meaning of "breach of faith" is limited to "breach of fiduciary duty" and "breach of fiduciary duty", which provides legislative basis and new ideas for understanding the nature of breach of trust crime. Through comparative analysis, the author thinks that the theory of breach of trust reveals the essence of the crime of breach of trust from the angle of property damage caused by breach of trust, and has a correct and reasonable core. But if we understand the extremely abstract concept of the relationship of trust as the premise of breach of trust indefinitely, it will blur the boundaries of the crime of breach of trust, which is not conducive to breach of trust and general debt. Doctor Takato Chuangguang of Japan has put forward the criteria for distinguishing "internal relations" from "opposite relations", but has not clearly defined their connotations. On the basis of a comprehensive comparative study, the author puts forward his own views on "internal relations" and "opposite relations". Internal relationship refers to the internal trust relationship between the actor and himself as an extension of his dealing with related affairs. Both of them appear as the same party in dealing with the affair. The actor's behavior refers to a third party, or an unspecified opposite party, but can never point to himself. The behavior of the perpetrator points to himself. Based on this view of "internal relationship", the author further puts forward a new viewpoint on the nature of the crime of breach of faith, "the internal trust barrier in dealing with affairs". The essence of the crime of betrayal is that the trustee violates the internal trust relationship between himself and himself in the process of dealing with affairs, fails to deal with affairs for the trustee from his own best interests, and causes his property damage.
In addition, the fourth chapter of this article also makes a comparative study on the elements of the establishment of the crime of betrayal in China and the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan. Through the comparison, the author finds that they have both similarities and their own characteristics. But in the two crimes of betrayal in China, the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies includes both the crime of natural persons and the crime of unit; the crime of betraying the use of trusted property can only be a unit crime. Second, from an objective point of view, China's crime of betrayal and the crime of betrayal of Germany and Japan are both acts of breach of trust committed by the main body and are property crimes. The specific meaning of "betrayal" is different, and the scope of the behavior is different. Moreover, the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan are both consequential offences, so it is necessary to cause personal property losses. Again, from the subjective point of view, Japan's crime of betrayal, in addition to its intent, must also intend to seek for the interests of oneself or a third person to cause harm to oneself, that is, with the purpose of profit or harm, is a crime of purpose. Germany's crime of betrayal and China's two special betrayal. In the end, the crime of betraying the interests of listed companies infringes on the dual objects, which not only hinders the management order of the companies and enterprises, but also infringes the property rights of listed companies. The single object destroys the order of financial management, while the legal interests protected by the crime of betrayal in Germany and Japan are my property rights.
Through the above-mentioned comparative study, we can find that the scope of the crime of betrayal in China is narrower than that in Germany and Japan in terms of subject and behavior, and there are some inadequate cases in regulating the general act of betrayal. The establishment of our country
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D924.3

【引证文献】