【作者】 秦正发；

【导师】 胡启忠；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 人口学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 在刑法、司法解释并无直接明确规定的制度背景下,以非法经营罪惩治高利贷滥觞于武汉市涂某、胡某案(2004年),此后类似案件同等处理的现象时有发生。高利贷刑法规制实践不仅造成司法不统一的局面,也引致学界的争讼不已。在否定论者看来,高利贷并非刑法意义上的非法经营行为,入罪违反罪刑法定原则；高利贷彰显契约自由精神、促进经济发展,即使入罪亦有违罪刑均衡原则,故而入罪不具有合理性。而肯定论者则着眼于高利贷之社会危害性,肯定其入罪之合法性,但对“违反罪刑均衡原则”之否定论缺乏应有回应且亦未能深入厘清其适用边界。此外,折中论者虽肯定立法增设高利贷犯罪之合理性,但否定以非法经营罪规制之合法性。那么,高利贷刑法规制究竟有无合法性和合理性?如果答案是肯定的,进而又该如何厘清其适用边界以及刑法适用问题?为此,本文主要基于理论、实证和规范三位一体的研究方法,对否定论者的相关理由展开论辩式研究,以期为司法实践、立法完善提供理论支撑和实践参考。研究表明：高利贷可分为“个贷型”和“放贷型”两种不同类型,唯独后者具有行政违法性,以非法经营罪惩治情节严重的“放贷型”高利贷不存在合理性和合法性方面的障碍。有鉴于此,进而尝试厘定高利贷刑法规制之适用边界以及高利贷连锁行为之刑法规制问题。具体内容安排如下：第一章：绪论。以高利贷刑法规制之实践与问题为切入点,在高利贷刑法规制研究现状与评析的基础上,着重提出亟待研究、解决的理论和实践问题。具体而言,主要包括高利贷刑法规制之合理性与否、合法性与否、边界如何控制以及高利贷连锁行为之刑法适用等四大类问题。继而对本文研究目的与意义、主要研究内容与方法、基本研究思路一并予以简述。最后对司法中的高利贷刑法规制的具体对象(“放贷型”高利贷)进行厘定。第二章：高利贷刑法规制之合理性争讼与辨正。本章旨在证伪高利贷刑法规制之合理性否定并证成其规制之合理性。首先,归纳高利贷刑法规制合理性争讼之症结,亦即,从哲学价值论看是自由、效率之辨；从刑法解释论看是罪刑均衡之争。其次,在寻求法治思维视野下高利贷刑法规制合理性统合的基础上,一方面,从价值论角度揭示否定论之缺陷(否定论者强调自由而忽视其他价值,关注效率而漠视效率之多维性),并辅之以实证支撑；另一方面,则以罪刑均衡相对论驳斥罪刑失衡论。最后,立基于中国刑法犯罪概念,从社会危害性和应受刑罚处罚性两个方面证成情节严重的“放贷型”高利贷刑法规制之合理性。第三章：“放贷型”高利贷刑法规制之合法性与法律适用进路。本章首先归纳高利贷刑法规制合法性争讼之节点(“放贷型”高利贷是否为“非法经营行为”和《刑法》第225条第4项应否适用情节严重的“放贷型”高利贷)。其次为节点化解寻求前提共识,对行政犯之特点、刑法适用解释之必要性以及例示法适用之基本方法(法条内类推)作一详细阐述。复次基于前提共识逐一化解争讼节点,研究表明：作为非法发放贷款之“放贷型”高利贷与《刑法》第225条第3项例举之行为方式属于同类事项,故而可适用于第4项规定。最后指出“放贷型”高利贷刑法规制之法律适用进路,亦即,刑事司法者实际上基于情节严重的“放贷型”高利贷具有社会危害性之司法“前见”,作为“一次法”规范的国务院《办法》锁定具体规制对象,刑法确定可资适用的罪名。第四章：“放贷型”高利贷刑法规制之边界控制。边界控制主要解决的是高利贷型非法经营罪之罪与非罪、轻罪与重罪之边界厘定问题,以期保障国民预测可能性和实现司法统一。在实体边界控制方面,强调违法性认识的可能性作为犯罪故意之必备要素,以“例示法”之相关例举项追诉标准为基准确定“情节严重”之起点,以追诉起点数额之五倍作为轻重罪界分之节点,并以放贷者已经收回的利息作为违法所得数额之计算标准。此外,对初见案件作一法理研判并指出其瑕疵所在。第五章：“放贷型”高利贷连锁行为之刑法规制。本章旨在解决高利贷型非法经营罪罪数形态之处理问题,亦即,与非法吸收公众存款犯罪行为、套取金融机构信贷资金犯罪行为、赌博犯罪行为、集资诈骗犯罪行为交叉时之司法应对。总体而言,可以牵连犯、竞合犯等刑法理论解决“放贷型”高利贷连锁行为之适用问题。同时,需要注意的是,基于数额犯之特点,应适用处罚较重之罪名,而不能单纯以法定刑设置之比较界定轻罪与重罪。在某种意义上,罪数形态问题的解决亦是对罪刑失衡论之有力驳斥。第六章：结语。本文基本结论是：在现行中国刑法框架内,以非法经营罪惩治“放贷型”高利贷不存在合理性和合法性障碍。继而指出本文可能的创新点。同时,鉴于本文存在之不足,有待后续研究解决的问题主要有：国外高利贷刑法规制之成因分析、刑法谦抑性的信息悖论问题以及本金之处理问题。此外,出于可能的压力型立法之考量,对“放贷型”高利贷规制路径(归属于扰乱市场秩序罪、破坏金融管理秩序罪、侵犯财产罪)予以展望。本文可能的创新点在于：其一,对于高利贷的刑法规制问题,文章首次将高利贷进行区别讨论(区分为“个贷型”与“放贷型”两种不同类型),有利于缩小犯罪圈和澄清理论混乱。高利贷不仅有法律与道德层面定义之别,亦有“个贷型”与“放贷型”类型之分。就后者而言,其区分标准主要在于出借资金对象是否特定,而当下我国刑法规制的仅是“放贷型”高利贷(非法发放贷款)。学界对“放贷型”高利贷行为法律性质的认识错误主要源于忽视“民间个人借贷”与“民间借贷”之语义流变。具体来说,央行《批复》中之“民间个人借贷”(包括“个贷型”高利贷而不是“放贷型”高利贷)与最高人民法院《意见》中之“民间借贷”之内涵和外延是一致的,可见最高人民法院《意见》并未就“放贷型”高利贷或是非法发放贷款行为予以规定。其二,法哲学上,具体提出“法治思维”之应然思考方式——在“法”的范围之内而不是之外的思考方式。其具体思考方式是：着眼于大局观、注重程序、坚持规范分析之思考方式。大局观不仅要求从刑法内部、整个法律体系思考问题,还要求从古今中外法律与经济、政治、社会、道德之间的共时性、历史性维度思考问题。程序既指法律程序又包括价值差序关系之排列。规范分析要求的是在个案评判中尊重、维护现行法律的有效性而不是从立法上批判既有法制。毋庸置疑,“法治思维”之具体思考方式不仅是对刑事司法者的基本要求,同样适用于法学研究者。其三,“一次法”依据上,首次从规范系统提出“行政法内容的开放性”特点,进而寻找“放贷型”高利贷治罪的“一次法”支撑。一般来说,行政法指导思想在于其合目的性,亦即,为了实现某种行政管理目的而人为建构某种规则,并通过强制保障管理秩序之实现。然而,为极力避免行政法严重滞后于生活情势之发展,从立法技术角度来看,行政法充斥大量例示法立法技术之烙印,通过保持行政法内容之开放性以便涵盖将来可能需要规制之侵犯行政管理秩序行为。进而言之,如果某种行政不法行为类型已纳入刑法规制轨道,那么行政法内容之开放性势必导致行政犯外延之开放性。其四,“二次法”运用上,首次对“例示法”适用作出新型“类推”解释——“法条内类推”。刑法规范是概念与类型之结合。概念揭示的是事物本质,而类型则是对事物现象或多或少地描述。例示法之适用坚持的是类型化思维且以类推的方式加以操作。亦即,在具体适用过程中,司法坚持由一般到具体之推理路径,将与不法类型相似的社会生活事实涵摄于概括条款规范之下。这种类推(姑且称为“法条内类推”)不同于罪刑法定原则所禁止的类推(姑且称为“法条外类推”),因为前者只能从例举的不法类型中寻找其适用界限,而后者在刑法典中并未予以描述或固定下来,是一种“法律的自由发现”。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the system background of without direct and clear defined from Criminal Law and judicial interpretation, penalizing usury assigns its origin to case of Tu Hangjiang and Hu Ming from Wuhan city in2004. Since then, equal treatment of similar cases have occurred from time to time.That judicial practice deal with criminal regulation on usury not only is lack of uniform, but also lead to endless debate continues in academics:In the negationist’s opinion, usury is not illegal business on the level of criminal law, its incrimination violates the the principle of legality; usury not only reveals the spirit of contract freedom, but also promotes economicdevelopment, incrimination is also against the principle of proportionality. Therefore, it is irrational to impose sanctions on usury. On the contrary, the approver focus on the social harmfulness of usury and affirms the legality of incrimination, but the theory is lack of response to "contravene the principle of proportionality" and couldn’t clarify its application boundary further. The compromiser insists the legality of incrimination, but they denies the legitimacy of usury regulated by the crime of illegal business. Then, whether or not that usury of criminal regulation is legitimacy and rationality? If the answer is yes,how to clarify its application and solve the problem of judicial boundaries that possible countermeasures? To find the truth, under the current system of space-time background, by theoretical, empirical and normative methods, this paper expands ulterior speculative research on negativism in order to provide theoretical support, judicial reference and legislative improvement. The results showed that:usury can be classified as two different types which are" loan type" and " lending type ". Only the latter possesses administrative illegality. If judicial punish "lending-type" usury in the name of the crime of illegal business, there is no obstacles of rationality and legitimacy. On the basis of view, then writer tries to determine the applicable bordary about criminal regulation of usury and deal with the number of crime in related sins. Specific content is organized as follows:Chapter I:intruduction. To expand the practice of criminal regulating usury as the starting point, on the basis of review of academic research on the relevant usury of criminal regulation, writer highlights the theoretical and practical issuesurgent. Specifically, including the four major categories of judicial issues that include the reasonableness of criminal regulation of usury or not, the legality or not, how to control the border and how to deal with it. In addition, writer gives general description the purpose and significance of this research, the main contents and methods, basic research ideas.Chapter II:the reasonableness of litigation and discrimination about criminal regulation of usury. This chapter aims to deny rationality falsification criminal regulation of usury and certify system of reasonableness conventions. First, summarize rationality contentious crux about usury of criminal regulation, that is, discriminate about freedom and efficiency from the philosophical theory of value; the dispute to balance of crime and penaty from the explaination theory of criminal law. Secondly, the methodological basis of Interpretation crux crack (dialectics) and the applicable rules (differential mode advantage rule), and to seek legal thinking usury criminal regulation under reasonableness of integration. Finally, in a clear criminal regulation usury object (usury of lending to public") is based on the theory of value from the perspective of one hand to reveal the defect lies on the negative (negative commentators stress free and ignore other values, concerns and ignore the benefits of effective multi-dimensional), while the balance of crime refute the legality imbalance theory of relativity; hand stand on Chinese criminal law concept of crime and punishment from the harm to society justify punitive aspects reasonableness usury of lending to public"shall be subject to criminal regulation.Chapter III:the legitimacy of "lending-type"usury of criminal regulation laws and the applicable path. This chapter first induction node problem contested the legality of criminal regulation of usury (the usury of "lending to public" whether any "illegal business practices" and "Criminal Law" Article225paragraph4shall apply to serious cases "lending type" usury). Followed by the node seeking to defuse the premise consensus on administrative offense characteristics, bi-directional constraints to explain the relationship between the well and apply basic methods exemplified applicable law for a judicial interpretation of criminal law elaborated. Thirdly premise-based consensus to resolve the contentious each node problem, research shows that:As of illegal loans,"lending type" usury and "Criminal Law" Section225acts enumerated in paragraph3of the way belong to the same matter, and therefore applicable to Item4regulations. Finally usury laws apply criminal regulation of the path, that is, those who follow criminal justice based on the "lend-type" usury social harm of a judicial "front view ", the Criminal Code to determine the applicable charges can be funded as State Department of complementary norms "approach" to lock specific regulations objects.Chapter Ⅳ:border control about criminal regulation of "lending-type"usury. Border control is mainly to solve the technical problem of crime or path-type illegal business of usury, misdemeanor and felony of determining the boundaries of its implementation, in order to protect the national forecast possibilities and realize judical unity. In terms of physical border controls, emphasizing the possibility of illegal cognition as an essential element of criminal intent, to " illustrate law" related items enumerated prosecution standards as a benchmark to determine" the circumstances are serious,"the starting point to five times the amount as a starting point for prosecution the severity of the crime division of the node, similar to bank lending rates more than four times the interest calculated on the standard of the illegal proceeds. In addition, the case for a legal judgments first saw and pointed out its flaws lies.Chapter Ⅴ:judicial respond to criminal regulation of complex usury. This chapter is intended to address the judicial response to deal with the crime of usury-type forms of illegal business several issues, namely, crosses with the crime of illegal deposits from the public, taking credit funds from financial institutions, gambling crime, financial fraud behavior. Overall, you can implicated, Lapping of Legal Provisions and other issues related to criminal law theory to solve the complex usury. Also, note that based on the characteristics of the amounts committed, the punishment heavier charges should apply, not simply to define the legal punishment of misdemeanor and felony comparison. In a sense, that solution about the number of forms crimes is also a refutation to theory of imbalance between the crime and penaty.Chapter VI:Conclusion. The basic conclusion of this paper is that obstacles of rationality and legality about punish usury of "lending to public" by the crime of illegal business does not exist within the framework of the current China’s criminal law,then pointed out the possible innovative points in this paper. Meanwhile, in view of the deficiencies in this paper and the follow-up studies are: causes analysis of criminal regulation on usury in foreign, the information paradox in restraining Criminal Law and how to deal with the principal. In addition, consideration for the possible of pressure-type legislation, further prospecte possible regulatory path about usury of "lending to public"(attributed to the crimes of disturb the market order, crimes of undermine the financial management order and crimes of against property).Innovation lies in the following:At first,on the criminal regulation of usury, it’s the first time to discuss the usury differently(class usury as "loan type" and "lending type"), which is helpful to reduce crime rings and clarify theoretical confusion. There are not only different definitions from legal or ethical aspects, but also two different types---"loan type" and "lending type". In terms of the latter, the main distinction standard is whether or not lend to specific object, and current criminal law only restricts the usury involving "lending to public"(illegal loans). Misunderstanding about the legal nature of "lending-type" usury in the academia mainly has rooted in neglecting semantic rheology between"folk personal loans" and "private lending". Specifically,"private personal loans "(including usury lending to public" and nof "lending to specific persons") in the "Central Bank Approved" is consistent in the connotation and denotation within the "private lending" which is from the "Supreme People’s Court Opinion", so the conclusion is clear that the "Supreme Court Opinions" doesn’t formulate the usury of lending to public " or illegal behavior of loan.Secondly, in philosophy, the writer puts forword the specific way of thinking about the "Rule of Legal Thinking"that thingking inside the scope of law rather than outside. That is, to focus on the bigger picture, emphasis on program, insist normative analysis. That thinking of the bigger picture requires not only configuring the criminal law and the entire legal system, but also the dimension of historic and synchronic to deal with the relationship among legal and economic, political, social, moral, and so on. Program includes legal proceedings and value rank relations. Normative analysis requires to respect and safeguard the effective-ness of existing laws in case evaluation rather than criticize the existing legal system from the legislation level. There is no doubt that the specific way of thinking about the "Rule of Legal Thinking" is not only a basic requirement for criminal justice but also equally applicable to legal researchers.The third, for the basis of the first specification, writer indicates the characteristical of "openness of administrative law content" from normative system for the first time, and then search for support from the first specification on punish "lending type"of usury.In general, the guiding principle of administrative law is purposiveness, that is, for certain administrative purposes we construct certain rules artificially, and achieve management order by the coercive power. However, in order to avoid the serious lag between the development of administrative and the life of situation, from the standpoint of technical legislative, administrative law is filling with a large number of cases of legislative technology of "Exemplified Law", so legislator must keep openness of the administrative law contents in order to cover possible violations of administrative management order in future. Furtherly, if certain type of adminstrative wrongdoing has been incorporated into the track of criminal regulation, openness of administrative law content will inevitably lead to the openness about the extension of the administrative offense.The fourth, on the appliance of the second spscification,a new "analogy" explains---" Inner-law Analogy" is proposed for the applicable of "Exemplified Law"for the first time. The criminal law norms are combination of concepts and types. The concept is to reveal the nature of things, and the types only describe the phenomenon of things more or less.That applicable of "Exemplified Law" should abide by the type thinking and operate by the way of analogy. That is, in the specific application process, the judiciary uphelds the path of reasoning from the general to the specific, and puts similar types of criminal facts of social life under the broad terms of subsumption in the specification. The analogy (tentatively called "Inner-law Analogy") is different from the analogy prohibited by the principle of legality (tentatively called "Extra-law Analogy"), and the former only find it listed in the applicable limits from unscrupulous types, while the latter in the Criminal law have not been described or fixed,only is a "discover legal freely".更多还原