【作者】 丁洁蓉；

【导师】 傅鼎生；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 法律， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 对票据伪造的认定、法律效力和损失承担问题,一直是各国票据法乃至国际票据统一立法的难点。票据被伪造后,伪造人获得非法利益,自然就有人蒙受损失,票据伪造所产生的损失最终承担者应是非法获利的伪造人。但是实践中,伪造人获得利益后,往往携款逃跑、死亡或破产、无力偿还,这时就出现损失承担问题——即在票据伪造人给付不能时应由哪一个票据关系人来承担损失,以及在伪造行为发生后,如何平衡票据各方当事人之间的权利义务关系。本文探讨的就是票据伪造人给付不能时的损失承担问题,在区别印章被仿造以及被盗用、滥用三种不同方式的基础上,结合日内瓦法系和英美法系的相关规定,分别讨论了出票伪造和背书伪造情况下的损失承担模式,进而提出了完善我国立法的建议。本文分四个部分进行了论述,现概括如下:第一部分是对票据伪造的概述。主要介绍了票据伪造的概念、构成要件、表现形式等基本概念。其中根据票据伪造的不同表现形式,笔者着重对签章被仿造以及印章被盗用、滥用三种情况展开研究,以便在后文中区分这三种情况分别论述票据伪造的损失承担问题。第二部分是本文的重点,主要研究签章仿造情形下的损失承担问题。这一部分分出票伪造和背书伪造两种情况展开论述。在出票伪造的情况下分别介绍了付款人承担损失原则,Kildor-Hicks理论,日内瓦法系和英美法系中付款人承担损失的例外规定,伪造票据的直接受让人承担损失原则以及这一原则的例外。在背书伪造的情况下,论述了日内瓦法系被伪造人承担损失原则、英美法系伪造背书的直接受让人承担损失原则以及我国票据立法的相关规定,介绍了两大法系处理背书伪造问题的历史演变以及对于背书伪造损失承担的例外规定,探讨了票据行为的权利外观主义理论和善意取得制度。第三部分主要研究印章被盗用、滥用情形下的损失承担问题。这一部分分别探讨了印章被盗用和滥用的情况下,应该根据是否能够举证证明以及是否成立表见责任来决定被伪造人应否承担损失的问题。第四部分提出了票据伪造损失承担的理想模式,并对完善我国票据立法提出了粗浅的建议。笔者认为我国相关立法应该积极参考两大法系中比较成熟的制度,并就区分不同的签章伪造方式设置损失承担模式、确立相对过失责任、明确保护善意持票人、明确保护善意付款人等多个方面提出了进一步完善的立法建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 It’s always the difficulty for the Negotiable Instrument Law of each country to come to terms on the legal effect and the risk of loss of the negotiable instrument forgery. While the forger gains the unjust enrichment, someone sustains loss without fail. It’s the forger who should bear the loss in this relationship. However, in the practice, the forger tends to disappear with his or her ill-gotten gains or become insolvent before the fact is uncovered. It’s inevitable in such a situation that some innocent party is going to be left to suffer the loss and has nowhere to turn for relief. It’s the issue this thesis tries to explore, that is which innocent party should bear the risk of loss and how to balance the rights and liabilities among the concerned parties. Comparing with the related stipulations in the common law system and civil law system, this thesis discusses the mode of loss-bearing under the circumstance of issuance forgery and endorsement forgery respectively on the basis of distinguishing three different methods of forgery, namely counterfeiting, embezzlement and misuse of the signature. This thesis addresses the issue from the following four parts:The opening part is the summary of the negotiable instrument forgery, which introduces the conception, the essential elements and the forms of forgery. To distinguish three different methods of forgery is an important step to explore the loss-bearing issue in the following parts.The second part discusses the problem of loss-bearing under the circumstance of signature counterfeiting on the negotiable instrument. It expounds the issue by distinguishing the issuance forgery and endorsement forgery, both under the circumstance of honoring and dishonoring the negotiable instrument. In the case of issuance forgery, the thesis discusses the rule of the payer assuming the loss and its exceptions as well as the rule of the immediate transferee assuming the loss, and introduces the Kildor-Hicks theory. In the case of endorsement forgery, the thesis discusses the rule of the forged assuming the loss in the civil law system and the rule of the immediate transferee assuming the loss in the common law system as well as the related stipulations in our Negotiable Instrument Law and their exceptions respectively. It also introduces the historical evolvement of loss-bearing issue of endorsement forgery in both legal systems and probes into the theory of right appearance and the system of acquisition with good faith.Part three focuses on the issue of loss bearing under the circumstance of embezzlement and misuse of seal on the negotiable instrument. Whether the forged party should bear the loss of forgery under this circumstance is up to the proof quoted by himself and whether he should bear the liability by estoppel.Part four puts up with the ideal mode of loss bearing caused by the negotiable instrument forgery, and gives some superficial suggestions to improve the legislation of our Negotiable Instrument Law. Take the issuance forgery for an example, the stipulations of our Law are a little bit stark, and the liability assumed by the buyer is too strict, which makes the distribution of rights and obligations unbalanced. Therefore, the thesis proposes that our Law should draw some valuable points from both legal systems. It should provide general principles as well as make some exceptions based on the consideration of balance of interests so as to fairly allocate the rights and obligations among concerned parties. Besides, the thesis also advises to set the mode of loss bearing by distinguishing three different methods of forgery, to establish the liability of comparative negligence, to protect the holder with good-faith demonstrably, and to protect the good-faith payer definitely.更多还原