集资诈骗罪“非法占有目的”要件的理论修正与司法检视  

Theoretical Revision and Judicial Review of the“Purpose of Illegal Possession”of the Crime of Fraud in Financing

作　　者：贾占旭 JIA Zhanxu(Law School,Ocean University of China,Qingdao Shandong 266100,China)

机构地区：[1]中国海洋大学法学院,山东青岛266100

出　　处：《法学论坛》2021年第1期113-119,共7页Legal Forum

基　　金：作者主持的2019年度教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目《网络融资犯罪的刑法规制研究》(19YJC820018);2017年度山东省社会科学基金项目(审判专项课题)《山东省非法集资犯罪法律适用问题实证研究》(17CSPJ12);青岛市社会科学规划项目《民间借贷涉集资诈骗罪问题研究》(QDSKL1701011)的阶段性研究成果。

摘　　要：传统非法占有目的理论难以对集资诈骗罪中反复的"借款-还款"行为予以精准定性。"排除意思"既不是诈骗罪主观层面的要素,也无法适用于持续还本付息的集资诈骗行为。"利用意思"和"不法获利"不能用以区分集资诈骗罪与非法吸收公众存款罪,无法发挥"非法占有目的"应有的罪名界分功能。非法占有目的并非集资诈骗罪的独立构成要件,以集资诈骗故意统摄本罪的主观要件并规范化解释为财产损害故意,能够完整地发挥定罪和罪名区分功能。以不具有债务履行能力和意愿推定财产损害故意,不仅符合理论逻辑,也能够通过司法实践的检验。The traditional purpose of illegal possession theory is difficult to accurately determine the nature of the repeated lonerepayment behavior in the crime of fraud in financing.The"exclusion means"is neither the subjective element of the crime of fraud nor can it be applied to the fraud in financing of continuous repay capital with interest."Using means"and"illegal profit"can’t distinguish the crime of fraud in financing from the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits,and play the required crime division function for the purpose of illegal possession.The purpose of illegal possession is not an independent component of the crime of fraud in financing,the subjective elements of the crime are governed by the fund-raising fraud intention are interpreted as the property damage intention in a standardized way,which is able to fully play the function of conviction and crime distinction.It not only accords with the theoretical logic,but also can pass the test of judicial practice to infer the intention of property damage with no having the debt performance and will.

关 键 词：集资诈骗罪 非法占有目的 财产损害故意 推定标准 

分 类 号：D924[政治法律—刑法学]