中俄刑法典中的赃物犯罪之比较  

Comparative Study on the Booty Crime between Chinese and Russian Criminal Laws

作　　者：吴占英[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]天津师范大学法学院 [2]武汉大学法学院

出　　处：《武汉大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2013年第5期82-88,共7页Wuhan University Journal：Philosophy & Social Science

基　　金：司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目(06SFB5012)

摘　　要：中国和俄国两国均将赃物犯罪集中于刑法典规制且适时变更立法,但罪名在各自刑法典体系中的归属不同。在"上游犯罪"的范围问题上,两国的意见不完全一致。两国对作为犯罪赃物的财物的理解存有一致。两国刑法典均以列举的方式列出了赃物犯罪的行为方式,只是我国刑法典的列举较为详尽。双方均认为自然人可以犯罪,但俄方否定单位可以成立犯罪。俄罗斯加重责任的主体规定更为合理。双方在间接故意能否构成犯罪上主张不尽相同。在赃物犯罪既遂标准上,中国刑法对赃物犯罪的行为方式的细致化的规定更有利于对赃物犯罪既遂的认定。俄方刑法典量刑条件具体化、刑种多样化、处罚人道化的做法值得参考。Through the comparison of booty crimes in Chinese and Russian criminal laws,it is known that： both countries focus booty crimes on regulation in the penal code and change the legislation timely,but the charges belong to different parts in the system of penal codes. The provisions about the object of crime differ between the two countries. In comparison,our country＇s law is worth using for reference. On the problem about the scope of ＂upstream crimes＂ , the two countries don^t fully agree. The two countries~ understanding of the property for booty is consistent. The penal codes of the two countries list the behavioral patterns of booty crimes in the form of list,but the list of our penal code is more detailed. Both sides think a natural person can commit booty crimes but Russia denies a unit can commit booty crimes. Russia ~s regulation for in- creased responsibility of subject is more reasonable. On the problem that indirect intent can constitute booty crimes or not, both sides~ claims are not completely the same. On the standard of the completion of booty crimes, the detailed rules for booty crime behavior in China＇s criminal law is more advantageous to the acknowledgment about the completion of booty crimes. The Russian approach about the materialization of sentencing conditions, diversification of mitigation and humanitarian punishment, is worthy of reference.

关 键 词：中俄刑法 赃物犯罪 比较 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]