论票据伪造的风险责任承担

【作者】 任丽；

【导师】 汪世虎；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2006， 硕士

【摘要】 票据伪造在外观上与票据行为的外观并无异常之处，所不同者在其实质要件的存在与否。票据伪造的本质在于票据上签章的伪造，在票据伪造的情况下，也即票据的外观与其实质不一致时，为促进票据的流通，如何调和票据债务人的责任，保护因信赖外观而取得票据的持票人的利益，就成为各国票据法解决票据伪造问题的意义所在。 在发生票据伪造时，伪造人即使不承担票据责任，也要承担民事赔偿责任，从理论上讲，受损失的一方有权要求伪造人赔偿，但在事实上伪造人往往无清偿能力或逃匿，使受损失的一方实际上无法获得赔偿，因此有义务承担他方损失而自己只能向伪造人追偿的当事人就承担了票据伪造的风险。对于票据伪造的风险责任问题，我国票据法并未作直接的规定，因而造成相关法律理解上的混乱，从而为法律的适用设置了障碍，因此须加以完善。本文以票据伪造的概念、构成要件、法律后果的阐述为铺垫，以Kildor-Hicks理论和损失分配原则的论述为理论支撑，以日内瓦票据法系和英美票据法系的比较为借鉴，着重评析了我国票据法，并对我国票据法的完善提出了立法建议。文章分为三部分，约3.9万字，各部分具体内容如下： 第一部分：票据伪造风险责任的理论基础 这部分从票据伪造的概念与构成要件入手，对票据伪造进行界定，并对票据伪造与票据无权代理、票据伪造与票据格式伪造、票据法上的票据伪造与刑法上的票据伪造、票据伪造与票据变造、票据伪造与票据代行进行了区分。票据伪造虽不能像真实的票据行为那样发生票据权利义务关系，但伪造的票据进入流通领域，会产生一定的影响，对不同的当事人也会产生不同的法律后果。伪造人是票据伪造中受损方的最终补偿者，但在实践中，伪造票据者往往获得非法利益后逃逸，难以查明或者即使找到了伪造人，伪造人已将所得赃款挥霍殆尽，以致无清偿力，这就涉及票据伪造的风险责任承担问题。关于这一问题的解决，理论上主要有Kildor-Hicks理论和损失分配原则两种理论模式。 第二部分：比较法视野下的票据伪造的风险责任承担 文章把票据伪造分为出票伪造和背书伪造，两大票据法系对出票伪造风险责任的规定基本一致，而对背书伪造风险责任的规定则迥异。在出票更多还原

【Abstract】 The essence of forgery of commercial instrument lies in the forgery of signature. When the bill is forged, even if the forger does not undertake the bill responsibility, he must also undertake the civil compensation responsibility. Theoretically speaking, a party who suffers losses is authorized to request the forger to compensate. However, it’s not always the case. The forger is often incompetent to pay or avoid paying off, causing a side which suffers losses to be unable to obtain the compensation in fact. Therefore, parties who had the duty to undertake others’ losses but only to request the forger to compensate undertake the risk of forgery of commercial instrument. As to the risk responsibility of forgery of commercial instrument, there is no direct provision in the commercial instrument law in china and it needs to be performed to consummate. The essay is divided into three parts, consisting of about 39,000 words:Part I : Risk responsibility of forgery of commercial instrument’s rationale. This part is based on the elaboration of the concept, the constitutions and its legal consequence of forgery of commercial instrument. There are two theoretical models: the theory of Kildor-Hicks and the theory of allocation-of-loss or comparative-negligence.Part II: Risk responsibility of forgery of commercial instrument under the comparison test field of vision. The forgery of commercial instrument has been divided into forged draft and forged endorsement. As to the risk responsibility of forged draft, the two commercial instrument legal systems basically stipulate the same. But as to the risk responsibility of forged endorsement, they stipulate differently. In the practice, the two commercial systems have some exceptional stipulations respectively. On the occasion of forged endorsement, the risk responsibility is attributed to the forged person under the Geneva commercial instrument legal system. Whereas the risk responsibility is mainly attributed to the forger immediate subsequent one under the Anglo-American instrument legal system. In fact, the different stipulation on the risk responsibility of forged signature under更多还原