刑法中的财产性质及财产控制关系研究

【作者】 王玉珏；

【导师】 刘宪权；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 财产犯罪是人类发展历史上最为古老的犯罪之一。财产犯罪的产生和发展与社会经济的发展有着极为密切的关系。面对日益纷繁复杂的财产关系、层出不穷的新型财产,传统刑法理论已经无法适应现实生活的需要。因此,在罪刑法定原则的框架里解决新形势下的财产犯罪问题,就成为了我国刑事理论与司法实践中的一个重点、难点问题。本文拟从财产性质及财产控制关系入手,对财产犯罪中出现的疑难问题展开研究,厘清刑法理论中对财产犯罪认定的一些界限,包括罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪的界限。期望能为司法提供指导,为立法提供借鉴,并推动我国刑法理论研究的不断丰富与发展。论文除导言外,共分为五章。导言部分对选题的背景进行了说明,介绍了国内外财产犯罪相关研究的现状,对论文的研究方法、创新之处以及研究意义进行了阐述。并指出对财产犯罪中财产性质和财产控制关系的研究,应当在刑法意义上作出正确的、恰当的理解,不能陷入刑民不分的泥潭。而对于财产犯罪中其他的重要问题,例如财产犯罪的罪数形态、共同犯罪的认定、犯罪数额的认定等等并未展开单独的研究和讨论。第一章对财产犯罪的概况进行了阐述、说明。在对财产权的观念、概念以及财产制度充分阐述的基础上,明确我国刑法中财产犯罪的概念、分类以及范围,为本文的研究打下理论基础。本文对财产性质以及财产控制关系的研究仅限于刑法分则第五章财产犯罪的范围,不包括破坏社会主义市场经济秩序罪、赃物罪、贪污贿赂罪等内容。此外,由于财产权利、财产等概念源于民法中的相关规定,因此对如何处理好财产犯罪中的刑民关系也展开了具体的研究。在刑民关系中笔者主张刑法独立性的观点,虽然刑法财产犯罪中的相关概念源于民法理论,但其在刑法中应有独立的含义和特征,不从属于民法领域,自成思想体系;在违法一元论和违法多元(相对)论之争中,笔者主张违法相对论的观点,即刑法上对违法性应当进行独立、具体地评价,从质和量的统一上阐述犯罪行为的社会危害性,将其和其他违法行为的社会危害性区别开来。第二章对财产犯罪的保护法益展开研究。对德、日、英、美等国家财产犯罪保护法益进行分析、归纳,指出各国刑法理论都认可“受到民法保护的合法利益应当受到刑法的保护”,但对刑法中的保护范围是否仅限于此则存有不同的见解。争议的焦点主要集中在,他人占有下的本人财物、不法原因给付物(贿款、嫖宿费用等)、违法所得、违禁品、财产性利益等能否成为财产犯罪的对象。这些争议反映到刑法理论上,就表现为违法一元论与违法多元论之争、刑法从属性与刑法独立性之争。并且随着社会经济关系的日益复杂化,财产犯罪保护法益的范围也会发生相应的变化。我国刑法理论界对于财产犯罪的保护法益也有争议,存有所有权说、占有说、修正说之争。笔者认为其中的修正说较为妥当,同时又对修正说的部分观点进行了限定,提出本权者恢复权利的行为应当具备目的正当性、权利性和手段相当性。否则,不排除成立相应财产犯罪的可能性。同时从反面对修正说的观点进行解读。认为“需要通过法定程序恢复应有状态的占有”与“除去成立刑法上自救行为和行使权利行为之外的不法占有”在范围上大体相当。为了更好地理解财产犯罪的保护法益,文章分别对刑法上的自救行为和行使权利的行为进行了研究和探讨。第三章对财产犯罪的对象——财产进行了研究。目前我国刑法中的“财产”与“财物”经常处于混用的状态,这样则会导致两种结论:一是财产性利益不能成为财产犯罪的对象。由此对于使用暴力、胁迫、诈骗等手段侵害他人财产性利益的行为,只能以财产犯罪以外的其他犯罪予以惩处,或者根本无法入罪。二是财产性利益被包含在财物的范围内。这样容易模糊两者之间的界限,从而影响对犯罪行为的定性。因此,笔者认为,刑法中的财产包括财物和财产性利益,其中财产是上位概念,财物和财产性利益是下位概念,两者在地位上是平等的。财物可以成为财产犯罪的对象,而财产性利益只能成为某些财产犯罪的对象,如抢劫罪、诈骗罪、敲诈勒索罪等等。无论是财物还是财产性利益,在性质上都应当具备管理上的可能性、经济上的价值性和他人性。在此基础上,笔者对不动产、虚拟财产等能否成为刑法意义上的“财物”进行了具体地分析,并结合典型案例指出财产的性质对于财产犯罪的成立与否以及定罪量刑具有重要的意义。第四章讨论了刑法上的财产控制关系。在对刑法上的财产控制关系进行分类的基础上,厘清占有与持有、占有与所有的关系。在对财产犯罪占有的研究中,首先对民法中的占有与刑法中的占有分别进行了研究。在此基础上,提出了刑法占有与民法占有的异同点。笔者认为,刑法占有是一种事实而非权利,刑法占有强调事实上的占有;此外,两者在主观要素、主体及行为对象上有不同的要求。对此,既应当认识到占有概念在刑法领域与民法领域内的不同,又不能将两者对立起来,对差异作夸大地理解。文章明确了刑法占有的成立要素有二:一是占有的意思(主观要素):二是占有的事实(客观要素)。占有意思是指事实上支配财物的意思。占有的意思,并不限于对具体财物特定的、具体的支配意思。通常只要是对自己支配场所内的财物具有概括的、抽象的支配意思就够了。一般认为占有意思对占有的认定起补充作用,但在行为人并无占有意思而暂时控制财产的情况下,不能认定占有的成立。此外,文章专门对占有意思与场所的关系进行了深入地研究。提出了在不同场所中,对占有意思的要求并不相同。在公共活动空间内,由于存在导致事实支配弱化的因素,因此要求行为人具有积极的、明确的占有意思;在行为人具备“相对事实支配力”的隔离空间内,要求行为人主观上只要有概括、抽象的占有意思即可;在行为人具备“绝对事实支配力”的隔离空间内,行为人只要没有明确放弃财产的意思表示即可视为有占有意思。在占有事实的认定中,笔者从财产控制方式以及财产所处的场所等角度展开研究。除此之外,还要根据一般的的社会观察,依据社会观念进行综合判断。在占有的归属中,讨论了当财物与多人发生关系时,谁在事实上控制财物。主要有三种情况:第一,上下、主从者之间的占有,笔者认为当下位者在上位者的指挥监督之下,处于从属地位时,应当视为上位者占有的辅助;当下位者受委托对某物行使处分权时,其对该物有事实上的支配权,此时物品归其占有。第二,在对等关系者之间的占有中,财物处于数人的共同占有之下。此时,共同占有者拿走其所占有的共同财物构成盗窃罪。第三,对包装物的占有应当区分两种情况分别认定:一是当容器固定于建筑物上时,以钥匙持有人为该容器的占有人;二是容器可以随身携带或可被轻易移动的,则事实上对该容器具有管领支配的人,即为占有人。第五章重点讨论了两个问题:一是财产控制关系对财产犯罪定性的影响。通过对典型案例的分析,提出个罪之间的认定界限。尤其是对司法实践中争议较大的盗窃罪与诈骗罪的界限、盗窃罪与侵占罪的界限,提出了从财产控制关系角度进行区分的观点。具体而言,从财产控制关系上看,盗窃罪与诈骗罪都属于侵犯了他人对财产的占有。但盗窃罪中的非法占有是通过行为人实施秘密窃取行为主动实现的;诈骗罪的非法占有则必须同时获得受害人的“配合”。即行为人获得对财物的非法占有,是通过受害人实施的财产处分行为获得的。因此,若财物仍然处于受害人的控制范围之内,行为人通过自己的主动行为获取财物的应当认定为盗窃罪而非诈骗罪。在盗窃罪与侵占罪的界限认定中,重点讨论了侵占遗忘物与盗窃遗忘物的界限。提出了在不同场所中,对遗忘物的二重控制关系的认定标准。第二个问题讨论了财产控制关系对财产犯罪形态认定的影响。认为如果行为人由于其行为而使本人或第三人取得了对财物事实上的支配权与监督权,且使物的原占有人,不能再行使其对占有物的支配权与监督权,或者使其对占有物的支配管领力消失殆尽,或者至少使其对占有物支配权与监督权的行使,显然已经受到重大的阻碍时,可以认为财产犯罪成立既遂。司法实践中占有人对财物管理、支配的程度各不相同。因其占有程度强弱的不同,所以,排除占有的难易程度也不相同。财物性质、重量、体积、形状、所处场所、经济用途等不同,行为人控制财物的方式也不同。因此,笔者分别对单一财产控制方式和复合财产控制方式下财产犯罪既遂、未遂的认定进行了探讨。最后就财产的性质对财产犯罪形态认定的影响进行了分析。更多还原

【Abstract】 Property Crime is one of the most ancient crimes in our human development history, while its occurrence and development closely relate to the social economic development. Due to increasingly complicated property relations and new endless properties, the traditional criminal law theory is not applicable to meet the demands of real life. Therefore, it is a key and difficult problem to settle property crimes occurring in the new trends subject to Principality of Legality in our national criminal theory and judicial practices. The Author endeavors to study the difficult problems occurring in the property crimes and define the limits, including criminal and non-criminal, this crime and that crime, against the property crimes in the criminal theory in the view of property relations and property controlling relations, which may either give directions for judicial practices or give references for legality so as to promote constant riches and developments of criminal theory researches in our nation.There are five chapters in this Papers, excluding the Introduction hereof.The Author describes the backgrounds for the topics hereof, introduces the status for researches in relation to domestic and overseas property crimes and describes the research methods, creations and research values related to this Papers in the Introduction hereunder. Furthermore, the Author states that the researches for the property natures and property controlling relations in the property crimes shall be awarded with accurate and appropriate understanding rather than confusions between crime and civil in the light of criminal law. However, other material issues, such as quantity of crime, recognition of joint crime and criminal amounts, in the property crimes are not studied and discussed separately.The overview for the property crime is stated and described in Chapter One hereof. The Author defines the concept, categories and scopes for the property crime in our national criminal law on the basis of sufficient statements with respect to the ideas and concept of the property ownership and the property systems, which forms the theory basis for the researches in the Papers. The researches for the property natures and property controlling relations are limited to the property crimes specified in Chapter Five of the Criminal Law, excluding crime of damaging socialism marketing economic orders, stolen-property crime, corruption and bribery crime. The Author also makes detailed researches for criminal and civil relations in the property crime because the concepts of the property right and the property are sourced from relevant provisions of civil law. The Author supports that the property crime in the criminal law is separated from civil law, though relevant concepts of property crimes specified in the criminal law are sourced from civil law theory. The property crime shall be given with independent definition and characteristics in the criminal law rather than subordinated to the civil field. With respect to the dispute between monistic illegality and pluralism illegality (relative), the Author supports the view of relative illegality, namely, the criminal law shall give a separate and detailed comment against the illegality so as to state the social dangers of the said crimes and to distinct these social dangers from the social dangers arising out of other illegalities.The Author exercises researches for safeguarding the legal benefits in the property crime in Chapter Two hereunder. The Author analyzes and summarizes the safeguarding of the legal benefits in the property crimes of German, Japan, UK and USA, and states that "Legal benefits which are safeguarded by civil law shall be safeguarded by criminal law" is recognized in the criminal law theory of each country; however, the Author has different opinions against the safeguarded scopes. The dispute is mainly focused on whether the principal’s properties under the possession of others, payments under illegal reasons (bribery, fees for patronizing a prostitute and so on), illegal incomes, contrabands and property interests can become the objects of the property crimes or not. Such dispute in criminal law theory is become the dispute of monistic illegality and pluralism illegality and the dispute of sub-ordinance and separation of criminal law. Along with increasingly complicated social economic relations, the scopes for safeguarding the legal benefits in the property crimes are also being changed accordingly. There are also dispute against the safeguarded legal benefits in the property crimes in our criminal law theory, including Ownership Opinion, Possession Opinion and Rectification Opinion. In the opinion of the Author, the Rectification Opinion is much appropriate; furthermore, the Author limits some views of the Rectification Opinion and states that the obligee can recover its rights under its justification, rights and appropriate way. Otherwise, corresponding property crimes may be formed. Moreover, the Author analyzes the Rectification Opinion in the negative side thereof and considers that the scopes of "Recover the possession through legal process" are basically similar to those of "Exclude the illegal possession beyond the self-remedy and exercise of the rights in the criminal law" . With the goal of understanding the safeguarded legal benefits in the property crimes, the Author carries out respective researches and discussions against the self-remedy and exercises of rights in the criminal law in the Papers.Object of property crime——Property is studied in Chapter Threehereunder. Currently, "Property" and "Belongings" are usually mixed in our criminal law, which may lead to two conclusions: (i) the property benefit can not become the object of the property crime, according to which the acts infringing the property benefits of others through violence, stress and fraudulence can only be punished with the crimes beyond the property crime or can not be treated as crime; (ii) the property benefits are included in the belongings, which makes "Property" and"Belongings" become indistinct and thus affects the qualitative tendency against the crime acts. Therefore, the Author considers that the"Property" in the criminal law shall include the belongings and the property benefits, in which "Property" is grounded concept, while"Belongings and Property Benefits" is a derived concept, and"Property" and "Belongings and Property Benefits" are equal to each other. "Belongings" may become the object of the property crime, while"Property Benefits" can only become objects of some property crimes, such as robbery crime, fraudulent crime and blackmail crime, etc.Either "Belongings" or "Property Benefits" shall be managed possibly with economic values. Based on the foregoing, the Author analyzes whether the real estates and the virtual properties can become"Belongings" in the criminal law in any respect, and states that the property nature plays a key role in property crime and conviction and sentencing thereof by analyzing typical cases. The property controlling relations are discussed in Chapter Four hereunder. The Author defines the relations between possession and holding, possession and ownership on the basis of categorizing the property controlling relations in the criminal law. With respect to the researches for the possessions in the property crimes, the Author exercises respective researches against the possessions in civil law and criminal law. Based on the foregoing, the Author states the discrepancy between the possessions in civil law and criminal law. The Author considers that the possession in criminal law is a kind of fact rather than right and the possession in criminal law is focused on the fact; in addition, there are different requirements for the subjective factors, subjects and acts of the possession in civil law and criminal law. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the difference between the conceptof the possession in civil law and criminal law and not to confront the same by extending such discrepancy widely.The factors for possession in criminal law are defined in the Papers, which are (i) intentional possession (subjective factors); (ii) facts of possession (objective factors). Intentional possession refers to the intent of controlling the belongings in fact, while possession is not limited to the specific and special controlling against the specific belongings. In general, the general and abstract controlling intent against the belongings in its premises is enough. The intent of possession is considered to support the recognition of the possession; however, the interim controlling rather than possession shall not be treated as possession.In addition, the relation between the intent of possession and the premises is further studied in the Papers. The Author states that the requirements are different for possession in different premises. In public premises, the intent of possession can be recognized only provided that a person has active and express intent of possession; in a separate place in which a person has "Appropriate controlling in fact" , the intent of possession can be recognized if such person has general and abstract intent of possession subjectively; in a separate place in which a person has "Absolute controlling in fact" , the intent of possession can be recognized if such person fails to waive the intent of possessing the property.With respect to the recognition of possession in fact, the Author exercises researches in the light of controlling methods and the place where the property locates. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the recognition of possession shall be judged subject to general social observation and social overview. The Author discusses a person who controls the belongings in fact if such belongings relate to more than one person, which mainly include the following three conditions: (i) with respect to the recognition of the possession between a person and its commander, the Author considers that such person shall be treated as a support to its commander if such person is supervised by its commander, and such person shall be treated to possess articles if such person is authorized to dispose such articles due to its physical possession of such articles; (ii) if the belongings are under joint possession of more than one person, the joint possessors shall be treated to form the theft crime if they take away such belongings; (iii) the possession of the packages can be recognized through the following two conditions: (a) if the vessel is fixed on the building, the key-holder shall be the possessor of such vessel; (b) if the vessel can be carried or can be moved easily, the controller of such vessel shall be the possessor.The Author discusses two key issues in Chapter Five hereunder. Firstly, effects of property controlling relation to qualitative crime: the Author describes the recognition limits based on analysis of typical cases. Especially, the Author states that the limits of the theft crime and defraud crime, theft crime and embezzlement crime which are disputed in judicial practices, shall be varied in the light of the property controlling relations. In the light of the property controlling relations, both theft crime and defraud crime infringe the possession of property of others. However, the illegal possession in theft crime can be reached through the secret theft of the thief, while the illegal possession in defraud crime can be reached by the "co-operation" of the victim, namely, the illegal possession of the belongings can be reached based on the disposal of the property of the victim. Therefore, a person obtaining actively the belongings shall be recognized to commit the theft crime rather the defraud crime if such belongings are controlled by the victim. With respect to the recognition for the limits of theft crime and embezzlement crime, the Author materially discusses the limits of possessing the lost property and thieving the lost property. The Author states the recognition standards for the double-controlling relation of the lost property in different premises.Secondly, effects of property controlling relations to recognition of property crime morphology. The Author considers that the property crime can be formed if a person makes it or a third party obtain the controlling and supervision right of the belongings due to its acts and its acts make the original possessor not control and supervise such belongings any more or make the original possessor lost with the controlling and supervision right thereof or at least make the original possessor materially hindered to exercise its controlling and supervision right. The controlling levels for possessors to control the belongings are different in judicial practices. Due to different controlling possession levels, different property natures, weights, volumes, shapes, premises and economic usages for the belongings, the controlling methods against the belongings shall be different accordingly. Therefore, the Author discusses the recognitions of occurred property crime and attempted property crime under the single property controlling method and the complicated property controlling method respectively. In the end, the Author discusses the effects of the property nature to the recognition of patterns of crime.更多还原