“知假买假”的理论阐释与法律适用  

Buying Fake Intentionally: Theoretical Interpretation and Legal Application

作　　者：刘保玉[1] 魏振华[1] LIU Baoyu WEI Zhenhua(School of Law, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China)

机构地区：[1]北京航空航天大学法学院,北京100191

出　　处：《法学论坛》2017年第3期62-73,共12页Legal Forum

摘　　要：在借鉴赌博罪构成要件的基础上,根据"知假买假"者的主观目的与客观行为,可以将其区分为消费者与非消费者。前者适用消费者权益保护规范,但并不意味着其一定能获得惩罚性赔偿;后者应适用合同规范与行政奖励制度,逐步实现从职业打假人转变为职业举报人。《民通意见》第68条存在将"欺诈"混淆为"欺诈行为"之嫌,这一定程度上造成了《消法》第55条适用的理论争议与裁判不一,也使得部门规章、地方法规与司法解释之间产生了龃龉。但即便将《消法》第55条所称的"欺诈行为"限于经营者单方行为,消费者获得惩罚性赔偿仍然需要以经营者存在瑕疵担保责任为基础。"知假买假"获赔所涉及的法律规范可分为基础性规范、构成性规范与判断性规范三种类型,不同规范在"知假买假"获赔中起着不同作用。Based on the component elements of gambling crime,it can be divided into consumers and non-consumers according to the subjective purpose and objective behavior of＂Buying Fake Intentionally＂. The former applies to consumer protection rules,but does not mean that it will certainly obtain punitive damages; the latter should apply to contract rules and administrative incentives,which will gradually convert them from＂Faking guard＂to the professional informers. Article 68 of the Opinions on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law has the possibility of confusing ＂fraud ＂as＂fraudulent conduct＂,which to some extent has caused the dissension of Article 55 of the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests and has made a discord among the department regulations,local regulations and judicial interpretations. Even if the＂fraudulent conduct＂in Article 55 of the Law on Consumers is limited to the unilateral act of the business operators,the punitive damages for the consumers still need to be based on the liability for warrant of defects of the business operators. The legal rules involved in the compensation of Buying Fake Intentionally are divided into three types： basic norms,constitutive rules and judgment standards. Different norms play different roles in compensating of Buying Fake Intentionally.

关 键 词：知假买假 消费者 欺诈 惩罚性赔偿 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]