法无明文规定的单位犯罪有罪论之坚持与完善——以金融诈骗犯罪为例  

The Persistence and Perfection of the of Guilt of Unit Crime without Explicit Law

作　　者：魏瀚申 Wei Hanshen(Xiamen University,Xiamen 361005,China)

机构地区：[1]厦门大学法学院,福建厦门361005

出　　处：《湖北警官学院学报》2023年第5期84-94,共11页Journal of Hubei University of Police

摘　　要：针对金融诈骗犯罪的单位犯罪问题,存在法无明文规定的单位犯罪有罪论与法无明文规定的单位犯罪无罪论两种见解。法无明文规定的单位犯罪无罪论不仅忽视了金融诈骗犯罪的治理需求,而且与金融犯罪理论的现代化发展面向也不相符合,因而具有逻辑缺陷。反之,法无明文规定的单位犯罪有罪论契合了单位犯罪理论由个人责任模式向组织责任模式的应然转向,具有教义学基础;与其相关的立法解释属于法律提示而非法律拟制,因此仍然处于法治国原则的底线内。但法无明文规定的单位犯罪有罪论也存在一定不足之处,对此需要在单位固有责任的基础上,重新阐述《刑法》第30条的规范内涵,重构我国单位犯罪的立法模式,明晰其司法运用规则,由此才能真正推动我国刑事法治的现代化。Around the problem of unit crime of financial fraud,there are two opinions:guilt theory of unit crime and innocence theory of unit crime without explicit law.The theory of inno-cence of unit crime without explicit law not only ignores the governance needs of financial fraud crime,but also does not accord with the modernization of financial crime theory,so it has logical defects.On the contrary,the theory of guilt of unit crime without explicit law conforms to the necessary shift of unit crime theory from the mode of individual responsibility to the mode of or-ganization responsibility,which has a doctrinal basis.Its related legislative interpretation belongs to legal prompt rather than legal fiction,so it is still in the bottom line of the rule of law principle.However,there are some shortcomings in the theory of guilt of unprescribed unit crime.On the basis of inherent responsibility of the unit,we should reelaborate the normative connotation of Article 30 of the Criminal law,reconstruct the legislative model of Chinese unit crime and clarify its judicial application rules.Thus we can really promote the modernization of criminal law under the rule of law in China.

关 键 词：单位犯罪 有罪论 金融诈骗犯罪 金融犯罪 单位固有责任 

分 类 号：D914[政治法律—刑法学]