【作者】 余小满；

【导师】 张德宗；

【作者基本信息】 河南大学 ， 中国古代史， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 宋代的职务犯罪是指宋代官吏的贪污贿赂犯罪及其职务行为中的各类违法行为的总称。为揭示宋代职务犯罪的特点,勾勒其演化的态势,应从宏观和微观两个层面对其加以探讨。在宏观层面,应探讨宋代的职务犯罪抑制举措及其实施状况,以便能够从整体上对宋代职务犯罪作一个较为客观的评价。在微观层面,应选取宋代职务犯罪的几个高发领域,剖析其中的职务犯罪现象,以便归纳概括其共同特点。从宋代抑制官员职务犯罪举措的角度来看,宋代重视对于官员职务犯罪的预防,制定有细密的法规,完善了相关的制度,对犯罪官员的惩治并不一味崇尚严刑峻法,而是采取以预防为主、惩罚为辅的策略,属于一种“制度防范型”的职务犯罪抑制举措。这种抑制举措在一定时期内收到了一定的成效。然而,它毕竟仍只是人治的产物,有很大的局限性,因而,宋代官员的职务犯罪问题并未得到根本上的解决,而且在特定时期还呈现出较为严重的态势。大体上,北宋前期和中期的官员职务犯罪问题还不是特别严重,而北宋晚期和南宋时期的官员职务犯罪问题则较为突出,某些方面的职务犯罪问题甚至还直接激化了当时的社会矛盾,构成了很严重的社会问题。从宋代职务犯罪立法的角度来看,北宋立法沿袭唐律,对于官吏职务犯罪的分类,采用赃罪、私罪、公罪的三分法,而南宋绍兴年间则针对官员职务犯罪问题,又制定有民事律,出现了包括民事罪在内的四分法。民事罪的出现,从侧面表明宋代官员直接侵害被施政对象利益的职务犯罪行为日益增多,构成了严重的社会问题,以致统治者感到有必要专门立法,对其进行专项治理。从宋代抑制吏人职务犯罪举措的角度来看,宋代政权不能在体制上对于吏人职务犯罪问题形成有效预防,对于犯罪吏人的惩治则过于依赖于事后的刑事制裁,抑制方式较为单一,属于一种“严刑峻法型”的职务犯罪抑制举措。由于宋代抑制吏人职务犯罪举措的相对滞后,其吏人的职务犯罪长期处于失控状态,两宋的吏人职务犯罪问题都很突出,而北宋晚期以及南宋时期的问题则无疑更为严重一些。以被施政对象的人身权益和财产利益为直接侵犯对象,这是宋代官员职务犯罪问题与吏人职务犯罪问题所共有的一个突出特点。这一直接侵犯被施政对象人身权益和财产利益的犯罪特点,在经济活动和司法活动中的职务犯罪问题中表现得尤为鲜明。在经济活动中,宋代官吏普遍存有违法科配、违法征收田赋、违法征收商税等职务犯罪问题。这三类经济型的职务犯罪问题,既具有相近似的违法表现,也具有相近似的犯罪危害后果。其近似的违法表现,即是说它们都是“擅行科率”的违法行为;其近似的犯罪危害后果,则是说它们都构成了对于被施政对象的财产权益方面的直接侵害。在司法活动中,宋代的司法官吏普遍存有违法缉捕、违法审判和违法监禁等职务犯罪问题。这三类司法渎职型的职务犯罪,同样具有相近似的违法表现以及相近似的犯罪危害后果。其近似的违法表现,即是说它们往往都是一些滥用司法职权的行为。其近似的犯罪危害后果,则是说它们大都构成了对于被施政对象的人身权利和财产权益方面的直接侵犯。从犯罪危害后果的方面来看,它的共同点都是利用职权“害民”,可以说,这六类广泛存在于经济活动和司法活动中职务犯罪问题,是恰与绍兴年间民事罪立法的范围基本一致的。违法科配是宋代常见的一类直接侵害百姓财产权益的职务犯罪问题,其突出表现则是违法摊派。宋代的科配有合法与违法之别,应注意区别“合法科配”与“违法科配”,也应注意纠正在以往研究中存有的将和买、科买、科配混为一谈的误解。宋代的和买是政府采购,科买是政府征购,由于诸种原因,官府在进行和买、科买的过程中经常实施违法摊派,从而产生出违法科配的问题。宋代的违法科配问题还广泛存在于与征榷有关的诸多经济领域之中,在榷盐、榷酤、榷茶、坑冶、市易等方面都有体现,既是宋代职务犯罪问题恶化的表现,也是宋代征榷制度恶性发展的必然产物。从立法、司法上看,尽管宋代中央政权试图取缔违法科配,并将其规定为犯罪性质,然而由于惩治的力度甚是微小,难以产生明显的实际效果。究其原因,这与宋中央政权自身在一定程度上也是“非法科配”的获利者有莫大关系。宋代违法征收田赋问题非常突出,广泛存在于田赋征收的每一个主要流程之中。在二税簿书编制过程中,其职务犯罪问题较为突出地体现为乡司的各种徇私舞弊行为。在田赋受纳环节,负责田赋受纳的官员主要通过“预借税租”、“加耗”、“斛面”、“违法支移”、“违法折变”以及公然破坏钞簿核销制度等手段违法增加田赋实际征收额,极大地增加了宋代纳税人的实际赋税负担,直接侵害了纳税人的财产权益;负责具体田赋受纳的吏人则通过“预借税租”、“揽纳税租”等手段趁机侵吞渔利或者收受贿赂。在田赋拘催环节,主要是“提前拘催”、“重叠催税”以及勒令“代输”,增加了纳税人的赋税负担,而且进一步加大了赋税不均,加深了社会矛盾。宋代的田赋违法征收问题尽管颇为严重,宋代法律中有关的违法征收田赋犯罪方面的治罪规定也颇为齐全,然而因此而被治罪的官员却并不多见,这表明宋代最高政权在惩治官员违法征收田赋方面的立法具有相当的欺骗性与伪善性。宋代的违法征收商税问题主要表现为地方官府私自设置征税机构、额外增置征税官吏、巧立名目盘剥商旅以及将商税课额摊派给百姓承担等违法行为。这一系列职务犯罪问题以及在处置对于这些职务犯罪问题时的态度,不仅反映了宋代基层政权的吏治腐败,也彰显了宋代中央政权在处理此类问题时的自利倾向,反映了宋代财政体制上的过度集权所造成的中央与地方在利益分配方面的矛盾冲突。因此,对于官吏违法征收商税问题,宋廷亦应承担一定的罪责。宋代的司法体制对于其司法职务犯罪问题有一定的影响。出于维持专制统治的需要,宋代统治者既要采取措施防止官吏滥用司法权力激化社会矛盾,又要采取措施加强对于人民的防范和镇压,从而使其司法体制呈现出“督捕”和“慎审”并存的特征。这种独特的司法体制将宋代司法职务犯罪问题主要导向了违法缉捕与违法监禁。尤其是针对“盗贼”而制定的督捕制度,已在很大程度上成为导致尉司滥用缉捕权的一个制度性成因。宋代在财政方面的高度集权对司法职务犯罪问题也有很大影响。财政体制上的高度集权造成了中央与地方在利益分配上的矛盾冲突,造成地方财政困窘,由此带来地方政府的司法经费短缺,并因此在相当程度上抵消了宋代在审判制度方面的优势,影响了其抑制职务犯罪功效的进一步发挥。吏人滥用司法权以敛财的问题突出,不仅体现为违法缉捕、违法监禁,而且还体现为司法诉讼过程中的受财枉法问题。伴随着宋代政治日渐黑暗,北宋晚期以迄南宋灭亡,审判官员“科罚民财”的职务犯罪也开始出现并呈现蔓延态势,这种滥用审判权的职务犯罪行为对于被施政对象的财产权益和人身权利的侵害程度很深。司法职务犯罪的一般特征是渎职,而从宋代各种司法权力滥用的表现及其成因来看,它不仅具备渎职的共性,而且还具备突出的非法牟利的个性。贪赃问题与司法权滥用问题相交织,乃是宋代司法职务犯罪的一个显著特点,同时反映出司法职务犯罪对民众财产权利、人身权利直接侵犯程度之深。违法科配、违法征收田赋、违法征收商税等存在于经济领域中的“擅行科率”类型的职务犯罪,其特征固然是非法侵害被施政对象的财产利益,然而为了实现这种侵夺财产的目的,不法官吏往往违法运用司法权力,以侵犯被施政对象的人身权利为威胁手段。因而,这两类直接侵害民众利益的职务犯罪行为,看似没有直接联系,但实际上它们并非各自孤立,而是互有联系的,在很多情况下,二者是一种目的与手段的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the characteristics of the phenomenon of duty crimes in Song dynasty.For the perspective of duty crimes suppression measures, the officials developed the detailed regulations, improved the relevant system for they pay attention to prevent the duty crimes in Song dynasty. The punishment of crime officers are not blindly advocating harsh laws, but to take to prevent mainly, supplemented by punishment strategies, which is a“system of preventing type”initiative. It has a good effect in a certain period of time. However, it has its limitations and instability of the Song dynasty because this suppression is the rule of man still moves product of society. The duty crime was not yet to be resolved and at a particular time also shows a more serious situation.For the perspective of duty crimes legislation, the legislation of Song dynasty followed the Tang dynasty. The officers’duty crimes were classified into ZangZui, private crime and public crime trichotomy. In Shaoxing years of Southern Song dynasty, the government officials used quadruplicity to classify the crimes, civil offense occurred. The emergence of a civil offense show that the Song officials directly against the public interests by virtue of increasing crime, so the rulers feel the need to introduce specific legislation and special treatment of its.For the perspective of prevention of minor official duty crimes, the punishment of crimes officials relied on penalty. The prevention method is single, which is a“harsh punishment-based”initiative. The duty crimes for the minor officials are serious because it is out of control long-term, which is against the interests of the people. Interest to the people and direct violation of the object, that is common feature of the phenomenon for the official and minor officials duty crimes in Song dynasty. This kind of direct infringement of the interests of people with duty crimes, mainly embodied in two types: one is widespread in the economic field, the illegal Kepei and tax collection law, business tax law, which is an economic model of duty crimes; the other exists in arrest, trial, imprisonment and other judicial acativities, which is a kind of judicial misconduct model of duty crimes with the feature of“harm the people”. Both types of duty crimes are exactly similar to the civil crimes legislation Shaoxing years.Illegal Kepei is a common duty crimes type in Song dynasty, which is a direct infringement of property rights and interests of people, and it features is illegal assessed. Kepei in Song dynasty was divided into other legal and illegal, people should pay attention to the distinction between legal Kepei and illegal Kepei. We also should pay attention to correct the misunderstanding of Hemai, Kemai, Kepei in the past. Hemai in Song dynasty was one way for government procurement;Kepei was one way for government expropriation by purchase. Kepei was one way for government expropriation by purchase. The government often did illegal assessment during Hemai and Kemai,which developed to illegal Kepei. It also prevailed in the field of Zhengque and reflected in Queyan, Quegu, Quecha, Kengzhi, Shiyi, which was a product of the malignant development of Zhengque system. From the legislative and judicial point of view, while the government tried to ban the illegal Kepei, it did not work. The reason for this is the central government itself is to some extent illegal Kepei closely related to those earnings.In the process of compiling the two tax book, the more prominent position crimes reflect a variety of favoritism for the township secretary behavior. In the link of receiving land tax, the receiving officers were responsible for increasing the amount of land tax actually collected through“renew and bespeak rent tax”,“cups noodles”, "illegal expenditure shift”,“illegal fold change" and other illegal means, which increased the people’s actual tax burden Song. The specific receiving minor officiers took the opportunity to profit or misappropriation of accepting bribes through the“renew and bespeak rent tax”,“get tax rent”, and so on. The illegal land tax collection phenomenon in Song dynasty is even though quite common, the related requirements are complete, but the officials were very few who was punished by it. It showed that the government imposed criminal punishment in the land tax law has a very deceptive and hypocritical feature in Song dynasty.The phenomenon of illegal expropriation of business tax in Song dynasty was prevailed. It mainly presented as establishing taxation institutions without authorization, increasing the extra officials and apporting the business tax quantity to other citizens. These illegal expropriation phenomenona is not only a reflection of the corruption of official management in Song dynasty, but also from one side of the situation reflects the serious contradictions between the central and local governments in the distribution of the financial interests brought about by the highly centralized financial in Song dynasty. The phenomenon of illegal collection for the business tax, the Song government should take some blame. The judicial system in Song dynasty has influence on the judicial duty crimes in a certain extent. For the need to maintain of authoritarian rule, both the officials to take measures to prevent the abuse of judicial power and intensify social contradictions, but also take measures to strengthen the prevention and repression for the people. So that it shows Du Bu and prudent trial features co-exist for the judicial system. This unique judicial system will mainly guide the judicial duty crimes to illegal arrest and illegal imprisonment. Especially for the thieves and the development of Du Bu system has led to the abusing use the arresting right in a large extent.The highly centralized power in financial affect the judicial duty crimes. The highly centralized financial system led to the conflicts of interest between central and local distribution. The result of local fiscal stress, judicial shortage of funds, to a certain extent offset the advantage of justice system in Song dynasty and affects the further play for the effectiveness prevention of duty crimes. Minor officials abuse the judicial power to collect money, not only by the illegal arrest, illegal imprisonment, which also reflected in the judicial proceedings by the financial pervert the law. With the increasingly dark political in Song dynasty, from the last years of Northern Song dynasty to the whole Southern Song dynasty, the trial officials“fine the wealth of the people”phenomenon began to appear and spread. The abuse of jurisdiction duty crimes committed in the high level of personal interest.The general characteristics of judicial duty crimes are dereliction of duty. All judicial powers abuse and its motivation of view in Song dynasty, it is common not only with dereliction of duty, but also have highlighted the illegal profit-making personality. Bribes phenomenon intertwined abuse of judicial power, is a distinctive feature of judicial duty crimes in Song dynasty, while it reflects the direct infringement against property rights, personal rights. Illegal Kepei, illegal land tax collection, illegal expropriation of business tax, were a kind of“Shan Xing Ke Shuai”duty crimes existed in the economic field. Its feature is illegally against the interests of the people. In order to realize the illegal plunder of economy for the people, the officers often illegally use judicial power as a means. So these two types of duty crimes directly against the public interest may seem there is no direct link, but in fact they are not each in isolation, but interrelated. In many cases, they have relationship between ends and means.更多还原