【作者】 王涛；

【导师】 田国宝；

【作者基本信息】 中南财经政法大学 ， 刑法学， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 对追索非法债务行为的刑法定性,司法实践和理论中一直存在许多争议。过去的司法实践面临的主要是索债型非法拘禁的定性争议,有许多学者对此提出了很多具有建设性的意见,但仍然存在许多值得讨论的问题,尤其是新近出现的新类型的索债行为,理论上研究较少。本文总结了追索非法债务行为的基本类型,将其分为暴力型追索非法债务行为和非暴力型追索非法债务行为,并对其定性争议以及争议的原因进行深入剖析,并综合司法实践和法学理论提出对追索非法债务行为的应然定性。本文由引言、正文和结语组成,其中正文分为四个章节:第一章介绍追索非法债务行为的相关概念和行为表现。非法债务是指双方或者多方在不具有真实意思表示或者明确违反法律禁止性规范的情况下订立的债权债务关系。不具备真实意思表示是指双方或者一方存在误解或者欺诈的情形,违反法律的禁止型规定,是指违反国家法律所规定的利率标准,以及国家不认可的债权债务形式。根据索债人所使用的手段的强制性程度不同对索债方式进行分类,即暴力方式、非暴力方式。其中暴力方式又分为基础型非法拘禁、抢劫型非法拘禁、绑架型非法拘禁。非暴力方式主要是滋扰生事、言语威胁、虚假诉讼和擅自取财的行为。第二章是追索非法债务行为的刑法定性争议。暴力方式追索非法债务行为的定性主要有非法拘禁罪说、绑架罪说、折中说。非暴力追索非法债务行为定性具体来说,滋扰生事行为定性的争议主要有寻衅滋事罪说与敲诈勒索罪说,言语威胁行为的定性争议主要是敲诈勒索罪说与无罪说,虚假诉讼行为的定性争议主要是虚假诉讼罪说与诈骗罪说,擅自取财行为的定性争议主要是盗窃罪说与敲诈勒索罪说。第三章分析追索非法债务行为性争议的原因。认定追索非法债务行为呈现出如此之大争议的主要原因在于,学者还囿于刑法第238条第三款与《解释》排除财产犯罪的规定,认为所有的索债行为只侵犯单一法益,在认定索债行为时只能根据索债行为的客观构成要件认定,而无法认定行为人在追索非法债务时具有非法占有目的从而排除财产犯罪的适用。另外,在认定追索非法债务时出现了以刑制罪的实用主义思想。同时,在对客观要件进行认定时,也局限于传统的构成要件行为,对于新出现的索债方式无所适从。第四章是追索非法债务行为的应然定性。在追索非法债务行为中,行为人不具有行使正当权利的合法外观,因而具有非法占有目的,基础型非法拘禁是行为人使用轻微暴力控制被害人人身自由,并以恶害相威胁,向被害人索取非法债务,此种行为不仅侵害了被害人的人身权益,而且侵犯了被害人的财产权益,应当定为敲诈勒索罪。抢劫型非法拘禁行为超出了非法拘禁中使用暴力的范围,完全达到了抢劫罪中使用暴力的程度,构成抢劫罪。以索取非法债务为目的绑架被害人向其近亲属及其朋友索要债务,并以杀害、伤害被害人相威胁的,或者绑架债务人的亲属向债务人索要非法债务的,符合绑架罪的构成要件,所以,绑架型非法拘禁构成绑架罪。在非暴力追索非法债务行为中,行为人具有非法占有目的,所以应当构成财产性犯罪,即滋扰生事追索非法债务应当构成敲诈勒索罪,言语威胁追索非法债务应当构成敲诈勒索罪,虚假诉讼追索债行为应成立诈骗罪。更多还原

【Abstract】 There are a lot of disputes in judicial practice and theory about the characterization of criminal law in the pursuit of illegal debts.In the past,the judicial practice was mainly faced with the qualitative dispute of illegal detention for debt collection.Many scholars put forward many constructive opinions on it,but there are still many problems worth discussing,especially the new type of debt collection behavior,which is less studied theoretically.Summarized the debt recourse illegal behavior are reviewed in this paper.the basic types,it can be divided into violent illegal debt recourse actions and non-violent debt recourse illegal behavior,and the researches in qualitative dispute and the reason for the dispute,and judicial practice and law theory of illegal debt recourse action ought to be qualitative.This paper is composed of introduction,text and conclusion,of which the text is divided into four chapters:The first chapter introduces the concepts and behaviors of recovery of illegal debts.Illegal debt refers to the creditor’s right and debt relationship entered into by two or more parties without real intention or in clear violation of legal prohibitions.The absence of true expression of intention refers to the misunderstanding or fraud of both parties or one party,and the violation of the prohibition provisions of the law refers to the violation of the interest rate standard stipulated by the national law,as well as the form of creditor’s rights and debts not recognized by the state.According to the coercive degree of the means used by the creditors,the methods of debt collection are classified as violence and non-violence.The forms of violence can be divided into basic illegal detention,robbery illegal detention and kidnapping illegal detention.Non-violent means are mainly nuisance,verbal threats,false lawsuits and the act of taking money.The second chapter is "the qualitative dispute of criminal law on the pursuit of illegal debts".The characteristics of the violent pursuit of illegal debt mainly include the crime of illegal detention,the crime of kidnapping and the theory of compromise.Non-violent debt recourse illegal behavior qualitative specifically,stirring up trouble behavior qualitative trouble dispute for sex crime and racketeering sin said,speech threatening behavior qualitative dispute mainly racketeering sin and innocence said,false qualitative dispute lawsuit behavior is primarily a false litigation crimes and the crime of fraud of the said,money without authorization behavior qualitative dispute mainly theft and racketeering sin said.The third chapter analyzes the causes of the behavioral disputes over the recovery of illegal debts.That debt recourse illegal behavior shows the main reason why so controversial is that scholars still secure in the third paragraph of article 238 of criminal law and the provisions of the "explanation" exclude property crime that had only a single infringement law benefit,in that had behaviors can only according to had behavior objectively constitutive requirements identified,and at the time of the recourse illegal debt cannot consider the offender has the purpose of illegal possession,so as to exclude the application of the property crime.In addition,in the determination of the pursuit of illegal debt,a pragmatic thought of punishment has emerged.At the same time,when determining the objective elements,it is also limited to the traditional constitutive elements,and is at a loss about the new debt collection methods.The fourth chapter is the nature of the illegal debt recovery.In the act of illegal debt recourse,behavior person don’t have the legitimate exercise of legal rights are the appearance,and therefore has the purpose of illegal possession,illegal detention is behavior person to use mild violence control the victim personal freedom,and the evil against to the threat,to the victim for illegal debt,such behaviour not only infringes the endeavoured rights of the victim,and violation of property rights and interests of the victim,shall be as the crime of extortion.The robbery illegal detainment behavior exceeds the scope of using violence in illegal detainment,and completely reaches the degree of using violence in robbery crime,which constitutes robbery crime.Abducting the victim,his or her close relatives or friends for the purpose of obtaining illegal debts,and threatening to kill or injure the victim,or abducting the debtor’s relatives for illegal debts from the debtor,meet the constitutive requirements of the crime of kidnapping,so,kidnapping illegal detention constitutes the crime of kidnapping.In the non-violent pursuit of illegal debt,the actor has the purpose of illegal possession,so it should constitute a property crime,that is,to stir up trouble to pursue illegal debt should constitute the crime of extortion;threats to pursue illegal debt should constitute the crime of extortion;false litigation should constitute the crime of fraud.更多还原