逃税罪实体性免责的制度悖论及程序性回归  

The Institutional Paradox and Procedural Regression of Substantial Exemption of Tax Evasion Crime

作　　者：敦宁 DUN Ning

机构地区：[1]大连海事大学法学院

出　　处：《法治研究》2023年第6期18-33,共16页Research on Rule of Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“预防型犯罪的法治体系构造研究”(项目编号:19BFX068)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：《刑法修正案(七)》通过为逃税罪增设免责条款,事实上确立了该罪的实体性免责机制。但此种免责机制存在两个方面的制度悖论:一是与刑法教义学的一般理论存在冲突,影响了刑法适用的统一性和协调性;二是在刑事政策层面存在一定的误区,导致难以实现良好的政策效果。考虑到程序性免责的制度优势和我国不起诉率的大幅提升,逃税罪的免责机制应实现从实体性到程序性的制度回归。同时,为进一步拓宽程序性免责的适用空间,还应进行必要的立法完善,以形成多元化的裁量不起诉制度体系。在此基础上,检察机关便可结合认罪认罚从宽制度和企业合规建设,全面地实现对逃税罪的程序性免责,进而形成良好的法律效果和社会效果。The Criminal Law Amendment(VII)establishes a substantive exemption mechanism for the crime of tax evasion by adding an exemption clause.However,there are two system paradoxes in such an exemption mechanism:First,there is a conflict with the general theory of criminal law doctrine,which affects the uniformity and coordination of the application of criminal law.Second,there are some misunderstandings in the criminal policy,which makes it difficult to achieve good policy effects.Considering the system advantages of procedural exemption and the significant increase of non-prosecution rate in China,the exemption mechanism of tax evasion crime should realize the system return from substantive to procedural.At the same time,in order to further broaden the applicable space of procedural exemption,the necessary legislative improvements should be made to form a diversified system of discretionary non-prosecution.On this basis,the procuratorate can then combine the leniency system of pleading guilty and accepting punishment and corporate compliance construction to comprehensively achieve procedural exemption for tax evasion crime,thus creating a good legal and social effect.

关 键 词：逃税罪 实体性免责 程序性免责 制度悖论 制度回归 

分 类 号：D924.3[政治法律—刑法学]