“先因型”敲诈索财行为的罪与非罪  

The Distinction between Reasonable Exercising of Claims and the Crime of Blackmail

作　　者：胡启忠[1] 金朝榜 HU Qi-zhong;JIN Zhao-bang(Southwestern University of Finance and Economics,Chendu,Sichuan 610000,China)

机构地区：[1]西南财经大学法学院,四川成都610000

出　　处：《湘潭大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第1期65-73,共9页Journal of Xiangtan University:Philosophy And Social Sciences

摘　　要：关于“先因型”敲诈索财行为的性质界定,应当贯通民刑思维,从法秩序整体全面审视索赔事由、索赔数额和民法的关系。在索赔事由方面,依据法律有无明确规定,可以将其划分为“法定权利行使”与“法外索赔主张”两种类型。在索赔数额方面,索赔数额高低与财产法益相关联,需要明确索赔数额的限度。在索赔限额内,“法定权利行使”没有侵害财产法益;“法外索赔主张”虽然欠缺法律依据,在一定程度上侵犯了他人“法律上不为主张”或“事实状态维持”的利益,但如果“危害不大情节显著轻微”,那么刑法介入就需谨慎。逾越索赔限额,以胁迫方式天价索赔的行为,对超额部分应当以敲诈勒索罪认定。The establishment scope of the crime of blackmail can be reasonably defined through the double restriction of the cause of claim and the amount of claim.According to whether there are clear provisions in the law,the causes of claims can be divided into two types,"the exercise of legal rights"and"the claim for extra legal claims".In terms of the amount of claim,the high or low amount is related to the legal interests of property,so it is necessary to clarify the limit of the amount of claim.Within the limit of claim,"the exercise of legal rights"does not infringe on the legal interests of property."The claim for extra legal claims"lacks the basis of written law,infringes on the interests of others,and the circumstances are minor,so criminal law intervention should be cautiously exercised.The act of claiming for exorbitant price reflects the perpetrator’s purpose of illegal possession,unless it can provide evidence to the contrary.

关 键 词：敲诈勒索罪 财产法益 权利行使 索赔事由 索赔数额 

分 类 号：DF612[政治法律—刑法学]