恶意欠薪为何难以清除

2010年1月31日,上百名农民工立交桥上堵路讨薪,致郑州主干道交通堵塞。一农民工代表称知道堵路是违法行为,但是追不得已。近年来,地方政府似乎已穷尽一切手段来防止企业恶意欠薪,如建立了举报投诉工作制度、工资支付保障制度、处理拖欠员工工资争议案件的绿色通道、将恶意欠薪企业曝光并驱逐出当地等一系列举措。不     

悬赏举报制度若干问题研究

目次一、悬赏举报制度减少违法行为作用机制二、悬赏举报制度的消极影响三、当下构建悬赏举报制度中的问题十多年来,悬赏举报制度逐渐被我国各级公权机构运用,在市场秩序构建、环境保护、税务征收、抑制腐败、计划生育等领域,这一制度更是较多地被采用。之所以出现这一情形,主要原因在于这种制度可以较大程度上消解执法资源不足的困境,并以较低成本     

民事恶意诉讼制度初探

为有效规制恶意诉讼,2012年颁布的新《民事诉讼法》增加了恶意诉讼制度,这个规定是新《民事诉讼法》的亮点,但该规定的不足之处也不容忽。下面,我将围绕着恶意诉讼的基本内涵,对恶意诉讼的认定标准、新增恶意诉讼制度存在的不足以及如何完善恶意诉讼制度作出较准确合理的探讨,以期准确把握恶意诉讼制度的精髓,利其器进而善其事,为我国恶意诉讼制度的完善提供建议方案。     

我国检察举报制度的问题及对策

文章综合采用比较、分析和实证的方法,分析了检察举报制度存在的主要问题,针对问题并借鉴国际反腐败经验,提出了建立反腐败统一战线、推广有利于保护举报人的密码举报制度、完善举报奖励制度、创立举报补偿制度及举报人投诉制度等改革对策,对“举报法”的制订进行了展望。     

完善举报制度的路径

举报是公民的基本权利,维护和促进公民举报权的行使是举报制度建设和完善的逻辑起点。但目前举报制度的运行中存在许多明显缺陷和疏漏,执法理念、制度建设和运行机制上的不足是导致该现状的主要原因。应从举报制度正当化的规范状态入手,完善举报制度的路径选择,更好发挥其民主监督和遏止腐败的作用。     

试论举报奖励制度

我国的举报制度建立以来,在遏制腐败方面发挥着越来越重要的作用。目前,举报已成为人民群众参与反腐败斗争最经常、最直接的方式。2009年5月31日,检察机关统一举报电话＂12309＂举报热线及举报网站域名www.12309.gov.cn试运行,同年6月22日,＂12309＂正式启用。但是,我国现行举报制度中对举报人奖励不够重视,奖励不到位,无法充分发挥群众举报和参与反腐败斗争的积极性和主动性。为此,必须完善举报奖励制度,激励公民积极行使举报权利。     

谁来保护举报人——打击报复举报人现象透视

近些年,有关打击报复举报人的新闻报道经常充斥媒体,人们在为举报人命运担忧的同时,更多的是对我国的举报制度给予了关注,完善健全举报制度的呼声日甚一日,同时也在思考着举报制度的昨天、今天和明天.     

论我国反腐败领域内部举报制度及内部举报人保护

组织内部的腐败因其隐蔽性而难以被发现,故内部举报制度在揭发组织内部的腐败方面起着重要作用,究其历史来源,我国的检举揭发或举报(reporting)制度时间久远。故从内部举报的概念及行为模式着手,结合我国举报制度之特殊性,阐明内部举报行为应系举报行为的一种,但行使主体限于组织内部人员且仅限于对特定国家权力机构进行举报(对外举报)。并以我国现有举报制度的立法现状为根基,加之参考国外相关立法,我国现行法律应当系统区分内部举报人与一般举报人,对内部举报人进行单独保护。具体而言,即从明确内部举报的内容、提升对内部举报人的保护力度以及构建对内部举报人的激励机制三个方面逐步建立健全我国“内部举报人”制度。2023年12月29日,《刑法修正案(十二)》通过,为惩治民营企业内部腐败犯罪提供了法律手段,进一步对国家反腐倡廉号召作出了回应。内部举报制度亦亟待作出相应的完善,从而更好地治理腐败,净化社会风气。     

我国举报制度的缺陷及其完善

举报权是公民的一项受宪法保护的民主权利,举报制度已经成为我国民主建设的一个重要组成部 分,在加强民主监督,遏制腐败,打击犯罪方面发挥着重要作用,但我国的举报制度还存在许多明显的缺陷。本文从分析建立举报制度的必要性入手,就我国举报制度的缺陷及其完善提出了几点初浅的看法。     

从一桩专利申请权纠纷看恶意诉讼

从律师代理的一桩恶意诉讼案件，剖析我国现行法律制度下恶意诉讼的产生原因、过程及法律后果，揭示恶意诉讼的危害性及产生恶意诉讼的制度漏洞，就恶意诉讼的防范及应对提供相关建议。     

Automated identification of installed malicious Android applications

Increasingly, Android smartphones are becoming more pervasive within the government and industry, despite the limited ways to detect malicious applications installed to these phones' operating systems. Although enterprise security mechanisms are being developed for use on Android devices, these methods cannot detect previously unknown malicious applications. As more sensitive enterprise information becomes available and accessible on these smartphones, the risk of data loss inherently increases. A malicious application's actions could potentially leave sensitive data exposed with little recourse. Without an effective corporate monitoring solution in place for these mobile devices, organizations will continue to lack the ability to determine when a compromise has occurred. This paper presents research that applies traditional digital forensic techniques to remotely monitor and audit Android smartphones. The smartphone sends changed file system data to a remote server, allowing for expensive forensic processing and the offline application of traditional tools and techniques rarely applied to the mobile environment. The research aims at ascertaining new ways of identifying malicious Android applications and ultimately attempts to improve the state of enterprise smartphone monitoring. An on-phone client, server, database, and analysis framework was developed and tested using real mobile malware. The results are promising that the developed detection techniques identify changes to important system partitions; recognize file system changes, including file deletions; and find persistence and triggering mechanisms in newly installed applications. It is believed that these detection techniques should be performed by enterprises to identify malicious applications affecting their phone infrastructure.     

恶意透支及其刑法规制

恶意透支有一般违法型恶意透支和犯罪型恶意透支,我国刑法规制的是犯罪型恶意透支。在各种类型的恶意透支中,积少成多型和骗领信用卡型是两种最基本的表现形式。刑法规制的恶意透支主体不仅仅限定为自然人,还应包括单位。恶意透支行为是恶意透支犯罪的客观方面,刑法对于恶意透支行为作了法定解释,但如何认定恶意透支行为,对恶意透支犯罪行为的刑法规制采用何种立法例更适宜等问题的探讨,具有重要的现实意义。     

Failing to tell friend from foe: A comment on Wijn et al. (2017)

Behavioural observation programmes are becoming increasingly popular at transportation hubs, sporting events, and other large crowd gatherings. Premise of these programmes is that malicious intention can be accurately deduced from observable behaviour. In a recent article published in this journal, Wijn et al. (2017, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 378–399.) conclude that environmental cues improve the correct detection of participants with malicious intent. This conclusion can and will be interpreted as support for behavioural observation programmes. In this comment, we argue that Wijn and colleagues draw a fundamentally wrong conclusion from their data. What their data show is that malicious intentions could not be detected in any of the conditions. Their findings can therefore not be conceptualized as evidence for behavioural observation programmes. Rather, they add to the growing critique voiced towards such programmes.     

商标恶意抢注法律规制路径探究

商标恶意抢注有违诚实信用原则,应予规制。适用我国现行《商标法》规制恶意抢注在注册确权、侵权救济和法律责任承担方面存在局限性;基于《侵权责任法》保护民事权益的范围所限,商标恶意抢注并非均为民事侵权行为,适用《侵权责任法》难以对恶意抢注实施全面规制;以《反不正当竞争法》规制恶意抢注,可对其启用行政调查措施,并通过法律责任承担规定使得恶意抢注人为此承担民事责任和行政责任,但须以竞争关系的存在和构成不正当竞争行为为适用要件,因此存在边界限制。为有效规制恶意抢注,应当结合前述立法的功能定位选择多元化法律规制路径,并从明确恶意抢注商标不予注册、规定未经实际使用的注册商标不得转让、限制恶意抢注商标的请求权方面对我国商标立法以制度完善。     

APK Auditor: Permission-based Android malware detection system

Android operating system has the highest market share in 2014; making it the most widely used mobile operating system in the world. This fact makes Android users the biggest target group for malware developers. Trend analyses show large increase in mobile malware targeting the Android platform. Android's security mechanism is based on an instrument that informs users about which permissions the application needs to be granted before installing them. This permission system provides an overview of the application and may help gain awareness about the risks. However, we do not have enough information to conclude that standard users read or digital investigators understand these permissions and their implications. Digital investigators need to be on the alert for the presence of malware when examining Android devices, and can benefit from supporting tools that help them understand the capabilities of such malicious code. This paper presents a permission-based Android malware detection system, APK Auditor that uses static analysis to characterize and classify Android applications as benign or malicious. APK Auditor consists of three components: (1) A signature database to store extracted information about applications and analysis results, (2) an Android client which is used by end-users to grant application analysis requests, and (3) a central server responsible for communicating with both signature database and smartphone client and managing whole analysis process. To test system performance, 8762 applications in total, 1853 benign applications from Google's Play Store and 6909 malicious applications from different sources were collected and analyzed by the system developed. The results show that APK Auditor is able to detect most well-known malwares and highlights the ones with a potential in approximately 88% accuracy with a 0.925 specificity.     

恶意欠薪罪若干问题探究

把《刑法修正案(八)》第41条新增设的罪名定位为恶意欠薪罪,不仅更为形象、生动与简洁,更加符合本罪的犯罪构成,而且还能够全面反映本罪的本质属性。恶意欠薪罪的现有立法规定尚有不明确之处或根本性缺陷,应予以解释或改进。其中,应把本罪的主观方面解释为"恶意",把本罪的客观方面限定为"情节犯",以合理划定本罪的犯罪圈。同时,还应舍弃客观的处罚条件,而采用一种二元化犯罪模式,以有效遏制恶意欠薪行为。     

恶意诉讼侵权之责任主体与救济路径

诉权行使的副产品为诉权之滥用。因此,为了有效防止诉讼、仲裁等纠纷解决方式被滥用,对恶意诉讼侵权责任的主体应持广义论。本文认为,除当事人外,诉讼代理人、鉴定人、证人乃至裁判者如果与当事人存在合谋或者独立实施了严重的程序滥用行为,应被追究侵权责任。作为法定之债,恶意诉讼的侵权责任应当通过审判程序来追究和实现。提起恶意诉讼侵权之诉是主要途径,具有普适性,而在本诉中提起反诉,或在原仲裁程序进行当中提出反请求,则具有合并审理的效率优势。     

新《商标法》第四条的适用研究

2019年11月1日实施的新《商标法》第4条第1款新增规定:"不以使用为目的的恶意商标注册申请,应当予以驳回"。第4条修改的立法意图主要在于规制商标的恶意申请注册行为,而非仅仅适用于商标囤积行为。否则,该规范的立法价值将大打折扣,无法充分实现该法第4条规定的立法目标。新《商标法》第4条适用的难点在于"恶意"和"不以使用为目的"两个要件的认定及两者之间的关系。"恶意"是指申请人或者代理机构违反真实使用意图,明知或应知其申请商标的行为会造成在先权利人损害而希望或放任损害发生的主观状态。"不以使用为目的"是指商标申请人以攫取不当得利,或者以商标作为竞争工具或掠夺侵占公共资源为目的的行为,其共性均为申请商标不是为了使用。对该法第4条新增规定的适用,"不以使用为目的"是作为"恶意"的定语或者修饰语,两者并非同等要件,无需同时满足;申请人具有"恶意"才是商标申请予以驳回的主要条件。恶意即为违背诚实信用原则,构成商标禁止注册的绝对事由。第4条的修改也吻合了我国新《商标法》为根治商标恶意注册,实现规制关口前移的制度设计安排。     

论诈害案外人恶意诉讼之程序法规制

恶意诉讼的形态多种多样,有些可以得到法律的规制,有些则由于法律制度的缺失,难以得到规制,以诈害案外人为目的的恶意诉讼即如此,因此应当考虑借鉴外国民事诉讼法上的经验,改革和完善我国的民事诉讼法,扩大有独立请求权第三人的范围,赋予权利被恶意诉讼侵害的案外人以诉讼参与权;扩大申请再审主体的范围,赋予权利被恶意诉讼者侵害的案外人以请求撤销生效裁判的权利。