非法吸收公众存款罪疑难实务问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-29 06:25

本文选题：非法吸收公众存款罪　切入点：主体认定　出处：《郑州大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着我国经济社会的大进步大发展,民间资本活跃异常,也导致非法吸收公众存款案件屡见不鲜,而且此类案件涉案金额巨大,涉案人数众多。从经济发达地区到经济不发达地区,从地方到全国,此类犯罪迅速蔓延,且经常引起群体性事件。这些案件不断出现也使得地方政府及司法机关焦头烂额,投入巨大的人力物力财力来处理这些案件,耗费了大量的社会资源与司法资源,而在处理这些案件时所涉及到案件的定性及后续问题的处置问题,一直是令司法机关头疼的问题,在这个过程中所引发的争议也一定程度的反映出当前司法认定与法律规制及理论研究之间的矛盾。基于上述事实,本文紧跟实务,归纳出在司法实践中对此类犯罪争议较多的问题,选取其中最具代表性和对司法实务最具帮助性的问题进行研究,并且经过归纳分析提出笔者个人见解;最后在分析国内外立法现状的基础上提出完善立法建议。总之,本文通过在实务中找出问题,将问题进行概括与分析,提出个人建议,以期理论解决实际,做到从实践中来到实践中去。本文一共分为四部分,第一部分为“非法吸收公众存款罪的特点及审理难点”,简述了非法吸收公众存款罪的概念,总结了本罪的特点,发现正是因为本罪的特点才引发了诸如群体事件等社会问题,而且这些特点的也决定了本罪案件在审理中存在的难点,本文也进而对非法吸收公众存款单位犯罪中起诉对象的确定、数额认定及存款人是否应作为被害人等诸多司法实践中的难点进行了分析论述。第二部分为“主体资格认定的难点、罪与非罪”,对没有存款业务的金融机构及具有吸收存款资格的商业银行等金融机构能否成为非法吸收公众存款罪的主体进行了分析,并且得出结论,金融机构无论是否具有存款资格,都可以成为非法吸收公众存款罪的犯罪主体。对非法吸收公众存款罪与民间合法借贷、委托理财进行了区别,经分析,非法吸存与民间借贷的区别主要在于吸存对象是否存在公众特征,而非法吸存与委托理财应从保底条款的存在与否、合同的签订针对对象是否不特定、资金的去向和用途、投资人是否受到损失这四方面来综合考虑来加以区别。第三部分为“共犯与罪数形态”,对非法吸收公众存款罪的共同犯罪形态进行了分析,认为为获得贷款而被迫帮助非法吸存的不构成帮助犯,为牟利而帮助非法吸存的构成共同正犯,并且对非法吸收公众存款罪与其他犯罪的罪数问题进行了分析阐述。第四部分为“非法吸收公众存款罪立法完善”,对国外相关立法规定进行了简要介绍,并针对非法吸收公众存款罪的完善提出了一些立法建议,包括:对本罪的主体范畴做出相对较细化的规定,进一步优化本罪当前的刑罚设置,适当增加资格刑罚等。
[Abstract]:With the great development of our country's economy and society and the unusual activity of private capital, illegal cases of taking deposits from the public are common, and the amount involved in such cases is huge. There are a large number of people involved. From economically developed areas to economically underdeveloped areas, from local areas to the whole country, such crimes spread rapidly and often caused mass incidents. The constant occurrence of these cases also made local governments and judicial organs extremely anxious. Investing huge human and material resources to deal with these cases, and consuming a lot of social and judicial resources, and in dealing with these cases involves the qualitative and follow-up issues of the disposal of cases, It has always been a headache for the judicial organs, and the controversy triggered in this process also reflects to a certain extent the contradiction between the current judicial determination, legal regulation and theoretical research. Based on the above facts, this paper follows closely the practice. In the judicial practice, there are many disputes about this kind of crimes, and the most representative and helpful problems are studied, and the author's personal opinion is put forward through the inductive analysis. In the end, on the basis of analyzing the current situation of legislation at home and abroad, the author puts forward some suggestions on how to perfect the legislation. In short, this paper tries to find out the problems in practice, generalize and analyze the problems, and put forward personal suggestions in order to solve the problems theoretically and practically. This article is divided into four parts. The first part is "the characteristics of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and the difficulties of trial". The concept of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is briefly introduced, and the characteristics of this crime are summarized. It is precisely because of the characteristics of this crime that it causes social problems such as group events, and these characteristics also determine the difficulties that exist in the trial of this crime case. This article also goes on to determine the object of prosecution in the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public. The amount determination and whether the depositor should be the victim or not are analyzed and discussed in many judicial practices. The second part is the difficulty of determining the subject's qualification. This paper analyzes whether the financial institutions without deposit business and commercial banks with the qualification to absorb deposits can become the subject of the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public, and draws a conclusion. Whether or not financial institutions are qualified for deposits, they can become the main criminal subjects of the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public. The distinction between the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits and the lawful borrowing and borrowing by the private sector and the entrusting of financial management are analyzed. The difference between illegal deposit-sucking and folk borrowing is mainly whether there are public characteristics in the object of deposit-sucking, and whether the illegal deposit-sucking and entrustment financing should exist from the bottom of the guarantee clause or not, whether the contract is not specific to the object, the direction and use of the funds. The third part is "the form of accomplice and the number of crimes", which analyzes the joint criminal pattern of the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public. Considering that those who are forced to assist in illegally sucking up deposits in order to obtain loans do not constitute aiders, and those who help illegally suck up deposits for profit constitute co-principal offenders, The fourth part is the improvement of the legislation of the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public, and briefly introduces the relevant legislation and regulations of foreign countries, and analyzes the crime of illegally absorbing deposits from the public and the number of crimes committed by other crimes, the fourth part of which is the improvement of the legislation of the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits. Some legislative suggestions are put forward for the perfection of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, including: making relatively detailed provisions on the subject category of this crime, further optimizing the present penalty setting of this crime, appropriately increasing the qualification penalty and so on.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D924.3

【参考文献】