【摘要】 在实务中,被告人委托律师辩护时,所支付的律师费用来自上游犯罪所得的,提供该资金给律师事务所的行为通常被认定为洗钱罪。这一定罪结论会带来诸多负面效果,为此,应当对洗钱罪的成立范围进行合宪性、目的性限缩,将为上游犯罪进行辩护时提供、接收可疑资金的行为予以非罪化。围绕对律师收取可疑资金不宜认定为洗钱罪的讨论,当下的诸多主张都存在不足,即便作为多数说的直接故意说也与我国司法解释的逻辑不符,且无法解决资金提供方的出罪问题,不能落实宪法精神。如果肯定律师职业自由及上游犯罪被告人的人权保障都具有宪法位阶性,律师在其所承担的辩护义务和报告可疑交易义务这两种冲突义务中,只要履行了维护上游犯罪被告人无罪推定利益的义务,即便其明知资金来源于特定上游犯罪,其收取职业报酬的行为也能够阻却违法性,从而根据义务冲突的法理寻找难题解决思路。提供可疑资金聘请律师的上游犯罪嫌疑人不构成洗钱罪的理由在于其所行使的是宪法保护的辩护权,且在接收报酬的律师不构成犯罪时,按照因果共犯论的法理,对该资金提供行为也无法确定其犯罪性。对于被告人用上游犯罪所得支付律师辩护费用的部分应当从洗钱犯罪总额中予以扣除的主张,在司法裁判中应当予以认可。更多还原

【Abstract】 In judicial practice, when a defendant retains a lawyer for defense and the attorney fees paid are derived from the proceeds of a predicate offense, the act of providing such payment to a law firm is usually identified as the crime of money laundering. This conclusion, however, gives rise to numerous negative consequences. Therefore, the scope of the crime of money laundering should be subject to constitutional and purposive restriction, thereby decriminalizing the provision or receipt of suspicious funds used for the defense of predicate offenses. Current arguments on the inadvisability of characterizing lawyers’ acceptance of suspicious funds as money laundering suffer from various deficiencies. Even the predominant theory of direct intent is inconsistent with the logic of judicial interpretations in China; moreover, it fails to address the issue of exonerating the fund providers and hence does not reflect constitutional principles. If the professional freedom of lawyers and the protection of the human rights of defendants in predicate offenses are recognized as constitutionally grounded, then in a situation where a lawyer faces conflicting duties—the obligation to defend and the duty to report suspicious transactions—the fulfillment of the duty to uphold the presumption of innocence for the defendant negates the unlawfulness of accepting professional fees, even if the lawyer has clear knowledge that the funds originate from a specific predicate offense. A solution to this dilemma may thus be derived from the legal doctrine of conflict of obligations. The reason why the suspect of a predicate offense who provides suspicious funds to retain a lawyer does not constitute the crime of money laundering is that the suspect is exercising constitutionallyprotected right to defense. Furthermore, under the theory of causal complicity, if the receiving lawyer is not held criminally liable, the criminal nature of the funding act cannot be established. In judicial adjudication, therefore, the defendant’s claim that the portion of attorney fees paid with proceeds from the predicate offense should be deducted from the total amount involved in money laundering ought to be accepted.更多还原