論非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的認(rèn)定——以施某“背車”案為例.pdf

1、1內(nèi)容摘要1997《中華人民共和國(guó)刑法》（以下簡(jiǎn)稱《刑法》）第225條規(guī)定的非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪因“違反國(guó)家規(guī)定”的空白罪狀和“其他嚴(yán)重?cái)_亂市場(chǎng)秩序的非法經(jīng)營(yíng)行為”兜底條款的立法方式，使該罪具有很高的概括性，如不對(duì)其作符合立法意圖的限定性理解，似乎一切專門從事非法營(yíng)利活動(dòng)且情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的行為均可納入該罪定處。筆者以施某“背車”案——也就是施某用自己的身份證替別人進(jìn)行車輛登記、之后又借政策變化向?qū)嶋H車主強(qiáng)行索取過戶費(fèi)是否構(gòu)成非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪案的爭(zhēng)議，分析了如

2、何認(rèn)定非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪。因施某借政策變化索取過戶費(fèi)不構(gòu)成非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪還涉及是否構(gòu)成敲詐勒索罪爭(zhēng)議，又附帶論述了敲詐勒索罪的認(rèn)定。文章分為以下三大部分。第一部分：案件基本情況。在此部分介紹了案情、爭(zhēng)議觀點(diǎn)及爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)。對(duì)施某“出借”身份證“背車”牟取利益的行為定性有構(gòu)成非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪和無罪兩種觀點(diǎn)，對(duì)施某借政策變化之機(jī)強(qiáng)行索取過戶費(fèi)的行為定性有構(gòu)成敲詐勒索罪、前非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的延續(xù)行為、無罪三種觀點(diǎn)。引起上述爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn)在如何理解非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的客體、空白罪狀、

3、兜底條款及敲證勒索罪的客體和行為要件。第二部分：案件所涉爭(zhēng)議的法理分析。這部份分為兩大部分，一是施某行為是否構(gòu)成非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪的法理分析。首先從非法經(jīng)營(yíng)罪法條列明的前三項(xiàng)行為侵犯客體均是國(guó)家特許經(jīng)營(yíng)制度及市場(chǎng)主體準(zhǔn)入制度，按“只含同類規(guī)則”界定兜底條款，兜底條款行為也應(yīng)是侵犯國(guó)家特許經(jīng)營(yíng)制度及市場(chǎng)主體準(zhǔn)入制度的行為。施某行為侵犯的是社會(huì)管理秩序，與特許經(jīng)營(yíng)制度和市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入制度無關(guān)。接著對(duì)“違反國(guó)家規(guī)定”進(jìn)行了解析，得出這一空白罪狀指的是違反國(guó)

4、家規(guī)定特許經(jīng)營(yíng)制度和規(guī)范市場(chǎng)主體準(zhǔn)入方面的法律法規(guī)，不是指違反任何法律法規(guī)的行為，得出施某行為違反的是社會(huì)管理秩序方面的法律法規(guī)，不屬于本罪的“違反國(guó)家規(guī)定”。之后對(duì)本罪兜底條款進(jìn)行了分析，最終得出兜底條款應(yīng)當(dāng)是第225條前三項(xiàng)列舉規(guī)定之外的、破壞國(guó)家特許經(jīng)營(yíng)制度和侵犯了市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入秩序的經(jīng)營(yíng)行為，得出施某行為不屬于本罪兜底條款的行為。二是施某借政策變化索要過戶費(fèi)是否構(gòu)成敲詐勒索罪的法理分析。首先分析了敲詐勒索罪的客體是單一的公私財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)

5、而非還要侵犯人身權(quán)，闡述了以給被害人造成惡害相威脅或要挾是敲詐勒索1Abstract1997thecriminallawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“criminallaw“)the225thregulationofillegalbusinesscountsculprit“inviolationoftheprovisionsofthestate“blanko

6、ther“illegalbusinessbehavithatseriouslydisruptedthemarket“deroutthetermsofthelegislativewaymakeithashighgeneralitysuchasnottoconfmtoitslegislativeintentfinallyunderstallseemstobespeciallyengagedinillegalprofitsifthecircu

7、mstancesareseriousbehavicanbesetintothelight.Theauthuseacertaincaseof“backthecar“(shipaidfidCARDSfothersinthenameofthevehicleallmotvehicleregistrationthenunderpolicychangesgestheactualownerthetransferfeedoesitconstitutes

8、illegalbusinesscrime)analyzeswhatisconsideredasthecrimeofillegalbusiness.Bypolicychangesgetransferfeewhichdoesnotconstituteacrimeofillegalbusinessbutalsoinvolveswhethermakecrimeofexttionattachedthecognizanceofthecrimeofe

9、xttionisexpoundedinthepaper.Thearticleisdividedintothefollowingthreeparts.Thefirstsection:thebasicinfmationofthecasewhichintroducesthecasethefocusofcontroversyviewsdisputes.Shi“l(fā)oan“idcarduse“backthecar“fprofitsthequalit

10、ativeofthebehaviconstitutethecrimeofillegalbusinessnottherearetwoviewsofinnocence.ThebehaviofShifcefullygesthetransferfeeconstitutesthecrimeofexttionthecontinuationofcrimeofillegalbusinessbehaviinnocenttherearethreeviews

11、.Thefocusofthecontroversyaboveishowtoundersttheobjectbehaviofthecrimeofillegalbusinessblankknockouttermsexttion.Thesecondsection:controversiallegalanalysisinvolvedinthecase.Thesectionisdividedintotwopartsfirstlycontrover

12、siallegalanalysisonShi’sbehaviconstitutescrimeofillegalbusinessnot.Firstofallfromthecrimeofillegalbusinesslawviolationobjectlistedinthefirstthreebehavisarenationalfranchisesystemthesystemofadmittanceofmarketmainbodyinacc