【作者】 李黔豫；

【导师】 徐士英；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 经济法学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 竞争是市场经济的本质特征,市场经济的优越性就在于通过竞争调动人们的积极性,通过竞争优化资源配置。而市场主体在追求自身经济利益的最大化这一根本目的的驱动下,可能会采取种种手段来削弱或限制竞争,这种行为将影响整个市场经济运行的效率,损害其他竞争者、消费者及社会公共利益。反垄断法素来被誉为“经济宪法”,它是保护市场竞争,预防和制止有损竞争的垄断行为,提高经济运行效率,维护经营者、消费者合法权益和社会公共利益,促进社会主义市场经济健康发展的重要法律制度。而法律责任制度则是保证反垄断法正常运行的基础,许多国家和地区都将垄断行为纳入法律规制的范畴,并根据社会危害性的程度及造成损害的大小,分别设定了民事责任、行政责任和刑事责任。而反垄断法上的刑事责任制度,作为规制垄断行为的最后手段,对于有效遏制垄断行为,维护正常的市场竞争秩序十分重要。本文主要从垄断行为的类型和危害性入手,对垄断行为刑法规制的价值进行了分析与探讨,并通过对发达市场经济国家和地区有关垄断行为刑事责任制度规定的比较分析,认为在我国反垄断法中引入刑事责任是十分必要的,进而对构建我国反垄断法刑事责任制度提出了一系列较为具体的立法建议。本文分为四章。第一章主要对垄断的含义以及垄断行为的类型进行阐述,明确了本文研究的对象是垄断行为而非垄断状态,而垄断行为的类型则包括经济垄断和行政性垄断两大类。之后结合我国《反垄断法》的第一条,对其立法目的做了简要分析。通过该部分内容论证了一个合理完善的法律责任体系对于反垄断法目标能否完全实现具有重大意义。第二章主要对垄断行为的社会危害性进行分析,指出经济垄断对消费者利益、市场竞争秩序、乃至整个经济社会的发展均具有一定的危害,行政性垄断还会在一定程度上滋生腐败。而其中情节严重或情节恶劣的必然已具备犯罪的本质特征,即严重的社会危害性,侵犯了刑法所保护之法益。同时,还通过对民事责任和行政责任的弱制裁性的论证,认为刑法作为“第二道防线”有必要对这种严重危害社会的行为进行规制,追究行为人的刑事责任。第三章主要考察了美国、日本这两个发达国家及我国台湾地区反垄断法律中刑事责任的立法情况,并通过对其立法规定的特点进行比较分析,总结境外反垄断法刑事责任制度的立法经验,并指出其中的可借鉴之处,即,对垄断犯罪进行刑事处罚应体现慎刑原则,且刑罚设置上应符合其行为性质。第四章是对我国垄断行为刑事责任体系的立法建议。主要包括以各方面:第一、从我国现行法律对垄断行为进行刑事制裁的不足,谈我国反垄断法引入刑事责任的必要性;第二、垄断犯罪的立法模式上,建议采取准用模式,在反垄断法中对垄断犯罪作出概括性的规定,即“情节严重的,依法追究刑事责任”的规定,进而通过刑法修正案对垄断犯罪作出明文规定;第三、分析垄断犯罪的构成要件,明确垄断行为罪与非罪的界限;第四、刑罚设置方面,应充分体现刑法的谦抑性,多适用罚金刑,适当适用短期自由刑;增设垄断犯罪的资格刑;还应制定操作性强的刑事宽恕政策;第四、应协调适用垄断行为的刑事责任、民事责任与行政责任,尤其是刑事罚金、民事损害赔偿、行政罚款三者间的关系。更多还原

【Abstract】 Competition is indeed the essence of market economy, whose advantage lies in mobilizing the initiative of people, optimizing resource distribution. Driven by the primary purpose of seeking its interest as much as possible, the subject of market is likely to take every possible means to restrict or weaken competition, which will in turn bring about influences on the running efficiency of market economy, cause damages to the benefits of other competitors, consumers and the whole society.Anti-monopoly law is always regarded as the constituion of economy, which is to protect the market competition, guard against and curb monopolistic conduct hindering competition. It is an important law enacted for the purpose of enhancing economic efficiency, maintaining the consumer interests and the public interests, and promoting the healthy development of socialist market economy, in which the liability system is the foundation to ensure the failure-free operation of anti-monoply law. In many countries, monopolistic conduct are regulated by law, which are to be dealt with civil liability, administrative liability and criminal liability in accordance with the extent of danger or damage to the society. As the last ditch to guard against and curb monopolistic conduct, the criminal liability system of anti-monoply law is much essential to maintain normal order of market competition.Beginning with the types and perniciousness of monopolistic conduct, the author of this thesis has conducted some analyses and researches on the values of criminal regulation on monopolistic conduct. Combined with the legislative defects of criminal liability of monopolistic conduct in our country, the author, by means of making comparisons and analyses of the criminal liability systems of monopolistic conduct in some developed countries and areas, has put forward some specific suggestions on constructing the criminal liability systems of monopolistic conduct of China.The said thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter one mainly expounds the connotation and types of monopoly. Then briefly describe the purpose of anti-monopoly law. In this chapter the author has made it clear that the object of study is monopolistic conduct but not the condition of monopoly. She has conducted some analyses of the types of monopolistic conduct, including the economic and the administrative monopoly.In chapter two, the author has analyzed the social perniciousness of monopolistic conduct, pointing out the more or less perniciousness of monopoly to the market competition order, other competitors, consumers and economic and social benefits of the whole society. Certain offences serious enough must be a violation to the legal interests protected by criminal law; hence, these acts that seriously endanger the society must by regulated by the criminal law, the second guard to give criminal sanctions to any violators.Chapter three is about some surveys of the legislative status in criminal regulation on monopolistic conduct in some developed countries or areas. By means of making comparisons and analyses of America, Japan or Taiwan China, the author of the thesis has tried to summerize the legislative experience of other countries and point out something for our further reference.Chapter four is about the legislative construction of criminal liability system on monopolistic conduct in our country, which consists of the following: 1. Legislative pattern, meaning to adopt a pattern of authorization. An amendment in the criminal law should be passed to clarify relevant regulations on monopolistic crimes. 2. The constitutive requirements of monopolistic crimes. 3. Criminal penalty. In order to give full expression to the principle of restraining of criminal law, more fine penalty and short-term freedom penalty should be used and qualification penalty should be added. Meanwhile, operable remission policies should also be formulated. 4. Some personal opinions are given about how to co-ordinate the relationships among the civil, criminal and administrative liabilities which suit monopolistic conduct.更多还原