中美洗钱罪立法比较研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 10:46

本文选题：刑法 + 洗钱罪　；参考：《西南政法大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：“不懂外国法律,也不会深知和悟解本国法律的特征和品格”。1美国是世界上最早将洗钱规定为犯罪的国家之一，在洗钱罪立法方面美国有较为丰富的经验可为借鉴。虽然中美两国分属不同法系，有着各自独特的社会治理结构和法秩序，但洗钱罪的国际性特征，为中美两国洗钱罪的比较提供了可能。2 本文共分六章，大约17万字左右，其主要内容梗概如下：第一章中美洗钱罪历史演进比较。中美两国在洗钱罪的历史演进中虽然都呈现出洗钱罪上游犯罪不断扩展、洗钱罪主体不断扩充的历史趋势。但由于两国政治、经济、文化和法律传统的不同，两国在洗钱罪立法演进中呈现出更多的体系性差异和发展路径差异。在体系构建上，源于两国对犯罪概念的不同理解，在洗钱罪立法体系上形成了双重立法体系与单一立法体系的差异。美国洗钱罪的双重立法体系即包括与我国《刑法》191条和312条内容相似的以打击洗钱行为本身为目的的狭义洗钱罪立法体系，也包括对违反反洗钱特定义务行为的刑事制裁措施，在体系上形成了严密的反洗钱刑事法网。与美国不同，基于我国刑法谦抑性和补充性的特点，对违反反洗钱义务的行为刑事法律未予以介入。这种单一的反洗钱刑事立法体系加之在片面共犯理论争议较大的现实背景下难以对特定反洗钱义务主体故意不履行义务的片面帮助行为形成有力的外部约束，造成反洗钱刑事法律体系不应有的立法漏洞。在发展路径上，中美两国形成了被动接受与强势扩张的鲜明对比。高度发达的金融服务业在为美国经济发展提供便利的同时也使其成为洗钱犯罪的重灾区，这迫使美国在洗钱问题上不得不主动亮剑积极出击。而在打击洗钱的道路选择上美国充分认识到国际协作的重要性，依托其超级大国的政治、经济地位，美国通过各类国际组织，采取多边、双边甚至是单边施压的方式在国际上推销其反洗钱制度。与美国内需型发展道路不同，我国洗钱罪的历史演进受国际公约影响较大，呈现出一定的立法被动性，缺乏整体的立法规划，以打补丁的立法方式造就了我国洗钱罪混乱的立法体系。这种混乱突出表现为洗钱罪的罪名混乱、犯罪分类的混乱、刑事法与行政法洗钱概念的混乱等。混乱局面的形成，从形式上看是补丁式立法模式的直接后果，从根源上看源于我国对洗钱罪侵害法益的曲解，从学理研究上看源于我国对洗钱罪特征的误解。第二章中美洗钱罪侵害客体比较。对洗钱罪本质的认识只能源于对其侵害法益的洞察，唯此才能为洗钱罪刑事立法寻找合理的根源。关于洗钱罪侵害的客体到底是国家金融管理秩序还是正常的司法活动在我国长期争论不休。美国学者也认为洗钱罪侵害了金融管理秩序和国家司法权，但同样的结论未必是同样的含义。对违反反洗钱义务的行为进行刑事制裁是美国洗钱罪侵害金融管理秩序说的前提，与美国不同，我国对特定义务主体违反洗钱义务的行为未纳入到刑事法律规范的范围内，因而美国的结论不能无差别的适用到我国洗钱罪侵害法益的结论中。我国洗钱罪是否侵害了金融管理秩序争论的背后实际上是在风险社会下洗钱是否侵害了一国金融安全的不同解答。从宏观上看社会整体的洗钱行为对一国的金融安全具有一定的负面影响，我国学者之所以得出洗钱行为侵害金融管理秩序的结论就是将整体洗钱的社会后果当作个体洗钱的社会后果进行刑事法律评价后得出的当然结论。从微观上看个体的洗钱行为由于其对国家金融安全的影响具有不确定性和轻微性因而不值得刑法进行规制。洗钱行为犯罪化的刑事立法根基仍在于洗钱行为对我国司法权的侵害。第三章中美洗钱罪客观方面比较。在洗钱行为类型的分类上，美国未从客观方面对行为类型做出限制，法条通过主观要素来体现行为的可归责性并作为区分行为性质的唯一标准，任何在特定主观故意驱使下的交易行为都可能构成洗钱罪，这种立法模式使美国洗钱罪能不断适应洗钱方式的发展、变化，并能灵活地适应国际公约的要求。与美国不同，我国采通了“列举加概括”的立法模式，但其概括性的规定仍不能使洗钱方式突破转移、转换、掩饰、隐瞒四种类型。对行为类型从客观方面做过多限制的立法模式使我国洗钱罪立法既不能完全涵盖国际公约规定的洗钱行为类型也使其丧失了应对社会现实的灵活性和广泛的适应性。在上游犯罪的规定上，美国各洗钱罪适用统一的上游犯罪圈，并通过列举类罪名和具体罪名的两种方式对上游犯罪进行规定，在类罪名能够明确地表明其所包含的具体罪名的情况下使用类罪名的列举，在类罪名具有模糊性的情况下列举具体罪名，从立法规范上和技术上明确了洗钱罪上游犯罪的具体范围。与美国相比，围绕我国刑法191条和312条的规定，我国形成了两大上游犯罪圈，但由于191条对上游犯罪只规定了类罪名，而部分类罪名又具有一定的模糊性，这给上游犯罪圈的区分和上游犯罪的确定带来一定的困难。在犯罪对象性质的确定上，中美两国分别采取了纯益主义和总额主义的立场。关于洗钱行为的对象即“犯罪所得”是否包括用于犯罪的成本，在美国最高院形成了纯益主义、总额主义和折中主义三种观点，但由于纯益主义和折中主义存在诸多理论和现实问题，最终被美国国会所淘汰。在洗钱行为对象性质问题上，目前我国尚无相关立法和司法解释对其进行说明，对其内涵的探究只能借助其上位概念“违法所得”。根据刑法第64条“违法所得”不同于“违禁品和供犯罪所用的本人财物”的规定可以推断立法上对违法所得采取的是纯益主义的观点。在司法解释上我国也出现了对“违法所得”的解释由总额主要向纯益主义的转变。对纯益主义和总额主义的政策选择仍离不开对洗钱罪侵害法益的考察，作为对国家司法权的侵害，洗钱行为不但影响了司法机关对违法所得的追缴也妨碍了司法机关对供犯罪所用的本人财物的没收，因而应立足于总额主义的观点对洗钱对象的性质进行界定。第四章中美洗钱罪主体比较。中美洗钱罪主体的差异主要体现在自洗钱行为是否构成洗钱罪的问题。美国将自洗钱行为入罪的规定是对其赃物犯罪历史传统的传承。上游犯罪主体能否成为洗钱罪主体，我国在学说上形成了肯定说、否定说和折中说三种学说。本文虽然支持否定说，但并不认同否定说的论证方式和论证基点。不可罚的事后行为理论是肯定说与否定说在认定自洗钱行为是否构罪的基本争论点。否定说一方面从文本解释出发认为191条的条文表述已经明确将自洗钱主体排除在洗钱罪主体之外，一方面又用不可罚的事后行为理论证明191条立法的合理性。不可罚的事后行为理论是刑法适用理论，用刑法适用理论去证明立法的合理性问题本身缺乏论证逻辑的正确性。不可罚的事后行为理论适用的前提是行为本身具有构成要件的符合性，但由于缺乏违法性或有责性因而不构成犯罪。上游犯罪主体的洗钱行为与盗窃后毁坏赃物的行为存在本质的区别，前者系191条已将其排除在构成要件符合性阶段，后者仍具有构成要件符合性。因此论证自洗钱行为是否构罪不是司法适用的问题，而是立法的合理性问题。我国之所以将自洗钱排除在洗钱罪主体之外，与我国对待赃物罪的历史传统有关，也是不得强迫自证其罪原则在刑事实体法中的体现。不得强迫自证其罪不仅是刑事诉讼法中的原则，在刑事实体法中也有体现，如我国刑法第305条、306条和307条的规定就是对这一原则在实体法中的应用。不得强迫自证其罪是天赋的自然权利，是被国际公约认可的公民权利，上游犯罪分子清洗自己脏钱的行为是对其权利的正当行使，因而不构成洗钱罪。第五章中美洗钱罪主观方面比较。中美两国在洗钱罪主观方面的规定中既有相同点又有差异性。相同点主要表现在均将过失排除在洗钱罪之外。差异性主要体现在对交易对象性质的明知程度、对上游犯罪圈的认识内容、故意样态三个方面。在交易对象性质的明知程度方面，美国为了解决特定义务主体在能够知晓他人洗钱的情况下，故意采取措施规避认识可能性，不履行反洗钱义务的现实问题，将“故意不知”纳入洗钱罪“明知”的范畴，从实体面扩大“明知”范围。与美国相比，特定义务主体反洗钱刑事责任缺失是我国洗钱罪立法体系的重大缺陷，在这种缺陷性的立法体系下，我国洗钱罪中的“明知”必然只能包括确定性认识和可能性认识两种，因而在完善洗钱罪立法体系的过程中，有必要将“故意不知”纳入到特定主体不履行反洗钱义务法条构造的主观范畴之中。在对上游犯罪圈的认识内容方面，美国不需要行为人对上游犯罪圈中的犯罪有认识，行为人只需知道其交易对象全部或部分来源于州、联邦或其他国家所规定的重罪即可，上游犯罪圈的存在不是为了限定洗钱者的认识内容，而是作为限定控方证明内容的一种方式。与美国相比我国刑法第191条中上游犯罪圈的规定限定了行为人的认识内容，，呈现一定的封闭性。封闭性的认识范围加之对上游犯罪规范性的立法描述，为洗钱罪的认定带来了困难。有必要借鉴美国区分主观明知内容与犯罪对象的证明内容的做法，结合312条的规定，将191条洗钱罪中行为人的明知内容扩展到所有犯罪。在故意样态方面，美国通过规定“蓄意”和“明知”两种主观心态形成错落配置、有机联系的刑事法网。与美国相比，我国刑法将191条规定为目的犯，这可能与金融犯罪一般是由直接故意构成的传统理念有关，也不排除立法者在洗钱罪中添加目的性要素的目的是为了强调洗钱罪的行为无价值性的可能，甚至可能与立法机关缺乏对国际公约相关犯罪构成仔细分析有关。目的犯的规定不但不符合国际公约的规定，而且限制了洗钱罪的适用范围，增加了犯罪认定的困难，导致了法律文本之间的不协调。第六章中美洗钱罪刑罚比较。美国洗钱罪上游犯罪统一划定，上游犯罪圈在立法上对量刑体系不具有影响性，由于影响刑量设定的因素相对单一，因而美国洗钱罪刑量体系彼此协调统一。与美国不同，我国存在两大上游犯罪圈，并根据上游犯罪圈的不同匹配不同的刑量体系，以上游犯罪圈的不同来确定刑量圈的不同需要上游犯罪圈的刑量等级与对应的洗钱罪的刑量等级相匹配，但我国在191条、312条和349条的刑量设置上并未实现这一目标，导致洗钱罪刑量体系呈现一定的混乱。这种混乱主要体现在特别法条和一般法条刑罚轻重设置颠倒，重罪轻罚、轻罪重罚两个方面。在对具体犯罪的量刑上，美国《量刑指南》对洗钱罪刑量的调节上充分考虑了上游犯罪的种类、资金用途、洗钱罪主体是否是职业洗钱者等综合性因素，这些因素对判断我国刑法第191条和312条中情节严重的情况均具有借鉴意义。
[Abstract]:"Do not understand foreign laws, and do not understand and understand the characteristics and character of national law".1 America is one of the first countries in the world to make money laundering as a crime. The United States has a rich experience in the legislation of the crime of money laundering. Although China and the United States belong to different legal systems, they have their own unique social governance structure and law rank. Preface, but the international characteristics of money laundering crime provide a possible comparison for the crime of money laundering between China and the United States.2
This article is divided into six chapters, about 17 words, and the main contents are as follows:
The first chapter is the historical evolution of the Sino-American crime of money laundering. In the historical evolution of the crime of money laundering between the two countries, China and the United States both present the historical trend of the continuous expansion of the crime of money laundering and the continuous expansion of the subject of the crime of money laundering. But because of the differences in the political, economic, cultural and legal traditions of the two countries, the two countries present more systems in the legislative evolution of the crime of money laundering. Differences in sexual differences and development paths.
The system construction comes from the different understanding of the concept of crime in the two countries and the difference between the dual legislative system and the single legislative system on the legislation system of the crime of money laundering. The dual legislative system of the crime of money laundering in the United States includes the legislation of the crime of money laundering, which is similar to the criminal law >191 and the 312 contents of the crime against money laundering itself. The system, including the criminal sanctions against the specific duty of anti money laundering, has formed a strict criminal law net against money laundering in the system. Unlike the United States, it is based on the humility and complementarity of our criminal law, and does not intervene in the criminal law that violates the anti money laundering obligation. It is difficult to form a strong external constraint on the one-sided help of the specific anti money laundering obligation under the controversial realistic background of the one sided accomplice theory, which causes the legislative loopholes that the anti money laundering criminal law system should not have.
On the path of development, China and the United States have formed a sharp contrast between passive acceptance and strong expansion. The highly developed financial service industry has also made it a heavy disaster area for money laundering crime, which compels the United States to take the initiative to fight money on the problem of money laundering. The United States is fully aware of the importance of international cooperation, relying on the political and economic status of its superpowers, the United States is selling its anti money laundering system internationally through various international organizations, multilateral, bilateral and even unilateral pressure. The historical evolution of the crime of money laundering in China is influenced by international conventions. Larger, a certain legislative passivity, lack of the overall legislative plan, the legislative mode of the patching of the legislative system created the chaos of the crime of money laundering in our country. This confusion is characterized by the confusion of the crime of money laundering, the confusion of the classification of the crime, the confusion of the concept of money laundering in criminal law and administrative law. It is the direct consequence of the patched legislative pattern, which originates from the misinterpretation of the crime of money laundering in our country and the misunderstanding of the characteristics of the crime of money laundering from our academic research.
The second chapter is the comparison of the object of the crime of money laundering between China and the United States. The understanding of the essence of the crime of money laundering is only energy for the insight into its infringement of legal interest. Only in this way can we find a reasonable root for the criminal legislation of the crime of money laundering. It is also believed that the crime of money laundering has infringed the order of financial management and the judicial power of the state, but the same conclusion may not be the same meaning. Criminal sanctions against the anti money laundering obligation are the premise of the infringement of financial management order in the United States. Unlike the United States, the act of violating the duty of money laundering is not included in our country. Within the scope of legal norms, the conclusion of the United States can not be applied to the conclusion that money laundering violates legal interests in China.
In fact, whether the crime of money laundering has infringed the order of financial management is in fact whether money laundering has infringed the financial security of a country under the risk society. From the macroscopic view, the whole social money laundering behavior of the society has certain negative effects on the financial security of a country. The reason why the Chinese scholars have come to the money laundering is to infringe on the financial management The conclusion of the order is to take the social consequences of the whole money laundering as a result of the criminal legal evaluation of the social consequences of individual money laundering. From the microcosmic point of view, the individual's money laundering behavior is not worth the regulation of the criminal law because of its uncertainty and slight influence on the national financial security. The legislative foundation still lies in the violation of our judicial power by money laundering.
The third chapter compares the objective aspects of the crime of money laundering in China and the United States. In the classification of the types of money laundering, the United States does not restrict the type of behavior from the objective aspects. The law article reflects the imputability of the behavior through the subjective elements and is the only standard to distinguish the nature of the behavior. Any transaction behavior under the specific subjective and intentional drive may constitute money laundering. This legislative mode makes the crime of money laundering in the United States adapt to the development and change of money laundering, and can adapt flexibly to the requirements of international conventions. Unlike the United States, China has adopted a legislative model of "enumerating and summarizing", but its general provisions can not make the way of money laundering transfer, transform, hide and hide the four types. The legislative mode of excessive restriction on the objective aspect makes the legislation of the crime of money laundering in our country neither completely covers the type of money laundering stipulated in the International Convention and makes it lose its flexibility and wide adaptability to social reality.
In the provisions of the upstream crime, the United States for the crime of money laundering is applicable to the unified upstream crime circle, and through the enumeration of two types of crimes and specific charges to stipulate the upstream crime. In the case that the class charges can clearly show the specific charges contained in the case, the use of class charges is enumerated, in the case of vagueness of the class charges. In terms of specific charges, the specific scope of the upstream crime of the crime of money laundering is clearly defined in terms of legislative norms and technology. Compared with the United States, China has formed two major upstream crime circles around the provisions of 191 and 312 articles in the criminal law of China. However, because the 191 articles only specify a class name for the upstream crime, and some types of crime have a certain ambiguity, which is the upper stream. The distinction between criminal circles and the determination of upstream crimes bring certain difficulties.
On the determination of the nature of the object of the crime, China and the United States adopted the standpoint of pure benefit and totalism respectively. The object of the money laundering, namely, whether the "proceeds of crime" includes the cost of crime, has formed three views of pure benefit, totalism and compromise in the supreme court of the United States, but because of pure benefit and eclecticism. In many theoretical and practical problems, it is finally eliminated by the United States Congress. On the nature of the object of money laundering, there is no relevant legislation and judicial explanation in our country to explain it, and the exploration of its connotation can only be carried out with the aid of its epistatic concept "illegal income". According to the sixty-fourth article of criminal law, "illegal income" is different from "contraband goods and offenders." The provisions of the personal property used in the crime can be inferred from the purely beneficial view of the lawmaking. In the judicial interpretation, the interpretation of the "illegal income" has also changed from the total to the pure benefit. The choice of the pure benefit and the total policy of the total doctrine still cannot be separated from the examination of the legal interest of the crime of money laundering. As a violation of the judicial power of the state, the behavior of money laundering not only affects the recovery of the illegal income of the judicial organs but also hinders the confiscation of the property used by the judiciary. Therefore, it should be based on the view of the totalitalism to define the nature of the money laundering.
The fourth chapter compares the subject of Sino-American crime of money laundering. The main difference between the subject of Sino-American money laundering is the question of whether the money laundering is a crime of money laundering. The provisions of the incrimination of the money laundering act in the United States are the inheritance of the historical tradition of the crime of the stolen goods. There are three doctrines of speaking and compromise. Although this article supports negation, it does not agree with the way of argument and the base point of argument. The theory of impunity is the basic argument of whether the affirmative and negative theory is the basic argument of whether the self money laundering is constitutive of the crime or not. On the one hand, the expression of the 191 articles is clear from the text interpretation. The subject of money laundering is excluded from the subject of the crime of money laundering. On the one hand, it proves the rationality of the 191 legislation by the theory of impunity after the act of hindsight. The theory of impunity is the applicable theory of criminal law and the theory of criminal law applies the theory to prove the rationality of the legislation itself. The premise of the application is that the behavior itself has the conformance of the constitutive elements, but it does not constitute a crime because of the lack of illegality or responsibility. The money laundering behavior of the main body of the upstream crime is essentially different from the behavior of destroying the stolen goods after the theft. The former is the 191 article which has been excluded in the conformance stage of the constituent parts, and the latter still has the constituent elements. Therefore, it is not the question of judicial application, but the rationality of the legislation. The reason why our country excludes money laundering from the main body of the crime of money laundering, is related to the historical tradition of dealing with the crime of stolen goods in our country, and is also the embodiment of the principle of not forcing the self proof of the crime in the criminal entity law. Crime is not only the principle in the criminal procedure law, but also in the criminal substantive law. For example, the 305th articles of the criminal law, the 306 and the 307 are the application of this principle in the substantive law. It is not obliged to force self proof to be a natural right of talent, the civil rights recognized by the international convention, and the upstream criminals to clean their own dirty money. Behavior is the proper exercise of its rights and therefore does not constitute money laundering.
The fifth chapter compares the subjective aspects of the crime of money laundering in China and the United States. There are both the similarities and differences in the subjective aspects of the crime of money laundering between the two countries and the United States. The same points are mainly manifested in the exclusion of the negligence from the crime of money laundering. The difference is mainly reflected in the knowledge of the nature of the transaction object, the understanding content of the upstream crime circle and the intentional pattern of three parties. Noodles.
In terms of the knowledge of the nature of the transaction, the United States, in order to solve the specific obligation subject in the case of knowing other people's money laundering, deliberately takes measures to avoid the possibility of understanding, and does not fulfill the practical problems of anti money laundering obligations. It will "knowingly do not know" into the category of "knowingly" in the crime of money laundering, and expand the scope of "knowing" from the substantive area. Compared with the United States, the lack of criminal responsibility for the anti money laundering of specific subjects is a major defect in the legislative system of the crime of money laundering in our country. Under this defective legislative system, the "clear knowledge" in the crime of money laundering in our country is bound to include two kinds of certainty and possibility. Therefore, in the process of perfecting the legislation system of the crime of money laundering, it is necessary to "cause" the "reason". Meaning is not included in the subjective category of the specific subject not performing the law of anti money laundering obligation.
In terms of the understanding of the upstream crime circle, the United States does not need a person to know the crime in the upstream crime circle. The perpetrator only needs to know that the object of the transaction is all or partly from the state, the federal or other countries, and the existence of the upstream crime circle is not to limit the content of the money launderer, but as a limit. Compared with the United States, the regulation of the criminal circle in the 191st middle and upper reaches of the criminal law of our country defines the content of the perpetrator, and presents a certain closeness. The closed understanding and the legislative description of the norm of the upstream crime have brought difficulties for the identification of the crime of money laundering. It is necessary to draw on the distinction between the United States and the subjective. Knowing the contents of the contents of the crime and the contents of the proof of the crime, and combining the provisions of the 312 articles, the contents of the 191 acts of money laundering shall be extended to all.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D924.3;D971.2

【引证文献】