论惩治货币犯罪的立法缺陷及其完善

我国惩治货币犯罪的立法经历了从无到有并逐步完善的过程。但也存在不足之处,如持有、使用假币罪、出售、购买、运输假币罪的立案标准过低,没有将＂变造货币＂作为犯罪对象,没有根据使用假币的不同情形规定刑事责任,没有把制造、提供制假设备的行为规定为犯罪,没有将单位作为伪造货币等犯罪的主体,缺乏对货币犯罪被害人利益的保护等。要修改...     

伪造的货币不同于假币

《最高人民法院关于执行＜中华人民共和国刑法＞确定罪名的规定》和《最高人民检察院关于适用刑法分则规定的犯罪的罪名的意见》中 ,将刑法第一百七十一条、第一百七十二条的罪名分别确定为“出售、购买、运输假币罪、金融工作人员购买假币、以假币换取货币罪和持有、使用假币罪”。即均以“假币”取代“伪造的货币”。笔者认为不够妥当 ,因“假币”与“伪造的货币”是两个不同的概念。一、从妨害货币犯罪的历史沿革看“伪造的货币”的含义货币是经济交易的重要支付手段 ,是社会活动不可缺少的媒介物 ,不但对国计民生有重大的影响 ,在国际金…     

持有假币罪若干问题探究

作为假币犯罪体系之中的兜底罪名,持有假币罪的犯罪客体是货币的法定发行权、法定地位和国家的货币流通管理秩序;犯罪对象理应包括伪造和变造的人民币和境外货币;"持有"实质上是一种状态.只要能够证明现实地持有较大数额的假币,就足以认定符合本罪的客观要件;"明知"属于状态故意,只要能够根据基础事实合理推定主观上是明知,就足以认定符合本罪的主观要件.     

对持有、使用假币罪的法律思考

目前,在理论上和司法实践中,对持有、使用假币罪中假币的范畴的理解、"明知"的界定和罪名选择适用等问题,存在不同的看法,为了准确理解这些问题与正确适用法律,本文就此问题一陈拙见。     

货币犯罪的法律适用探析

伪造货币罪的法益是货币的发行权或者货币的公共信用,侵犯其一就成立既遂;伪造的含义具有相对性,出售、购买、运输假币罪,持有、使用假币罪以及走私假币罪中的伪造的货币包括变造的货币;即便认为出售、购买、运输假币罪与持有、使用假币罪属于选择性罪名,为实现罪刑相适应,也有数罪并罚的可能;使用假币过程中被发现而使用暴力的,能够转化成抢劫;为自己使用购买假币的,也构成购买假币罪;出售假币与使用假币的区别在于对方是否知情。     

持有、使用假币罪司法疑难问题研究

持有、使用假币罪是指明知是伪造、变造的货币而非法持有或者使用,数额较大,根据证据不能认定为其他货币犯罪或其他犯罪的行为。持有、使用假币罪是当前司法实践中各种有关货币犯罪行为中较难认定的犯罪。一、持有、使用假币罪的行为认定(一)持有假币持有假币是指假币处于行为人控制或者支配下的行为。这种持有是广义的,可以是随身携带、藏匿家中或其他某处,也可以是委托他人保管等。行为人与假币的空间距离不影响持有行为的构成,也就是说持有的构成不要求行为人将假币置于自己眼能看到、手能触到的地方,无论置于何处,只要行为人对假币的去留、存废等有支配权,即为持有。持有同样不要求直接持有,     

对持有、使用假币罪的法律思考

目前，在理论上和司法实践中，对持有、使用假币罪中假币的范畴的理解、“明知”的界定和罪名选择适用等问题，存在不同的看法，为了准确理解这些问题与正确适用法律，本文就此问题一陈拙见。     

货币犯罪若干司法疑难问题探析

惩治金融犯罪始于打击危害货币管理制度犯罪，目前我国司法实践中对货币犯罪的惩治，在危害货币管理制度犯罪行为人主观目的认定、持有使用假币罪交叉行为的认定以及出售购买运输假币并使用假币的罪数认定等方面仍存在疑难问题与课论分歧。     

论持有、使用假币罪

作者认为持有使用假币罪侵犯的客体是国家的货币流通管理制度，客观方面表现为持有、使用伪造的货币数额较大的行为，并对“持有”“使用”的含义作了探讨、分析。对本罪的主体做了严格界定。指出，构成本罪以明知为要件，但不以特定目的为满足。其后，文章对构成本罪与他罪及罪与非罪的界线做了研究     

论持有型犯罪的客观方面及刑法评价——兼论巨额财产来源不明罪的行为方式

持有型犯罪不同于作为或不作为犯罪,它是一种具有独立行为方式的犯罪类型。由于尚未造成任何法益的实际损害或危险状态,持有型犯罪因而是一种＂抽象危险犯＂。我国刑法分则规定的持有型犯罪包括涉及假币、枪支弹药、毒品等管制物品或限制流通物品的犯罪,不包括巨额财产来源不明罪。巨额财产来源不明罪是纯正的不作为犯罪。刑法对持有型犯罪的规定体现了国家刑罚权的扩张,对持有型犯罪的刑罚设置应当谨慎,应当体现现代刑法理论中的轻刑化思想。     

票据犯罪若干问题研究

票据犯罪主体因罪而异 ,有的票据犯罪一般个人主体、一般单位主体不能实施 ,只有特殊个人主体、特殊单位主体才能实施。有的票据犯罪主体必须具有票据当事人身份 ,非票据当事人不能成为该项犯罪主体。票据犯罪罪过形式是故意和过失 ,模糊罪过和混合罪过的观点并不适用刑法所要求的票据犯罪。银行结算凭证虽然不是票据 ,但是应该归属票据犯罪对象范畴。我国刑法应当承认票据无形伪造。     

想像竞合犯的理论探究

想像竞合犯,是指行为人实施一个事实行为,而同时触犯两个以上罪名的犯罪形态。其基本特征为:想像的犯罪竞合,实质的、裁判的一罪;基于单一或复合罪过的一个事实行为;同时触犯数个不同罪名的具体犯罪。想像竞合犯不同于规范竞合与结果加重犯。想像竞合犯一个事实行为的重复性,强调的是事实行为在数罪评价中的整体重复,包括准整体重复。打击错误原则上可以视为想像竞合犯的情形。对于想像竞合犯从一重处断。     

论危险犯的既遂、未遂与中止

危险犯有既遂形态,也有未遂等未完成形态。危险犯中既有结果犯也有行为犯,对结果犯而言,法定的犯罪结果发生是其既遂的标志,但对行为犯来说,则应以法定的行为完成作为既遂的标准。法定的危险状态出现后,危险犯中的结果犯在犯罪结果发生前还有可能中止犯罪,但危险犯中的行为犯则不可能成立犯罪中止。危险犯的犯罪中止不可能是相对于实害犯的中止。     

Decision Making in Delinquency Cases: The Role of Race and Juveniles' Admission/Denial of the Crime

Investigated how accused delinquents' admission/denial of their crimes affected adjudication and disposition decisions. An archival analysis of 2,043 adjudication decisions in 16 Georgia counties found that juveniles who admitted committing their crimes were treated more severely than juveniles who denied committing their crimes. Whites were more likely than Blacks to admit committing the crime, and, after controlling for this and other legal factors, race did not have a significant effect. In the second study, 67 judges, 53 probation officers, and 126 court service workers made adjudication and disposition decisions about three juveniles in an experimental simulation in which race of juvenile, length of prior record, and the juvenile's reaction to the crime (admitting or denying it) were systematically manipulated. Consistent with the archival study, juveniles who admitted committing their offense were treated more severely than juveniles who denied committing their offense. Possible reasons are discussed for why admitting a crime leads to more punishment.     

ON THE CAUSES OF "WHITE-COLLAR" CRIME: AN ASSESSMENT OF HIRSCHI AND GOTTFREDSON'S CLAIMS

This article assesses Hirschi and Gottfredson claims about patterns and explanations of White-collar crime. It points out several flaws in their analysis and shows (1) that the UCR offense categories of fraud and forgery are not appropriate indicators of white-collar or occupational crime because the typical arrestee in these categories committed a nonoccupational crime; (2) that the demographic distribution (age, sex, race) of these "white-collar" crimes is not the same as it is for most ordinary crimes; and (3) that the occurrence of these "white-collar" crimes is not relatively rare. The implications of the findings for research and theory on crime are also discussed.     

Stereotypical Hate Crimes and Criminal Justice Processing: A Multi-Dataset Comparison of Bias Crime Arrest Patterns by Offender and Victim Race

Many hate crimes are not reported and even fewer hate crimes result in an arrest. This study investigates patterns of victim reporting and arrest for hate crimes in two parts. First, using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that, controlling for offense severity, hate crimes are less likely than non-bias crimes to be reported to the police and that the police are less likely to take further action for hate crimes, compared to non-hate crimes. Second, we use data from the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the National Incident-Based Reporting System to compare differences between types of hate crimes in the likelihood of crime clearance. We find that those hate crimes most likely to result in arrest are those that fit the profile of a “stereotypical” hate crime: violent incidents, incidents committed by hate groups, and incidents involving white offenders and black victims.     

金融机构在反洗钱中的核心地位

洗钱犯罪有多种渠道,但大多数洗钱犯罪是通过金融机构进行的,金融机构是洗钱犯罪活动的重要场所。洗钱犯罪不仅动摇金融机构的信用基础,危及金融安全,而且还影响金融市场的稳定。充分发挥金融机构在反洗钱活动中的重要作用,建立起金融机构反洗钱犯罪的第一道屏障,对遏止洗钱犯罪起着至关重要的作用。     

论共同犯罪的转化犯

转化犯是真正身份犯。在聚众斗殴过程中出现致人伤亡但无法查清行为人情形的,应当根据行为人事前对伤亡结果的心理态度确定是否构成转化犯罪及其责任范围;集团犯罪转化犯的责任范围应当根据行为人事前对暴力、胁迫行为的心理态度来确定。间接正犯的转化犯要根据利用者对法定结果的心理态度和被利用者刑事责任能力的状态来确定;共谋共同正犯转化犯的责任范围应当根据共谋的内容是否包括转化犯罪来确定;承继性共同正犯转化犯的责任范围应当根据后参与者参加犯罪的时间来确定。在共同犯罪的转化犯与结果加重犯竞合的情况下,需要根据转化犯罪的性质来确定转化犯的责任范围;在共同犯罪的转化犯与包容犯发生竞合的情况下,应当根据行为人的行为状态来确定转化犯的责任范围。     

Consistency in crime site selection: An investigation of crime sites used by serial sex offenders across crime series

PurposeKnowing sites used by serial sex offenders to commit their crimes is highly beneficial for criminal investigations. However, environmental choices of serial sex offenders remain unclear to this date. Considering the challenges these offenders pose to law enforcement, the study aims to identify sites serial sex offenders use to encounter and release their victims and investigate their stability across crime series.MethodsThe study uses latent class analysis (LCA) to identify victim encounter and release sites used by 72 serial sex offenders having committed 361 sex offenses. Additional LCA are performed to investigate the stability of these offense environments across offenders' crimes series.ResultsDistinct profiles of crime sites that are recurrent across crime series are found, suggesting that serial sex offenders present a limited diversity of victim encounter and victim release sites. Encounter sites representative of longer crime series are also identified. Specifically, the use of sites known to "attract" potential victims decreases over series and offenders become more risk-taking in regard of sites used to encounter their victims.ConclusionsThe study identifies patterns of site- selection for the victim encounter and release in cases of serial crimes. Implications for crime linkage and police investigations strategies are discussed.     

Dissecting White-Collar Crime: Offense Type and Punitiveness

It is commonly asserted that the public is indifferent toward white-collar crime and hence is reluctant to “get tough” with more “respectable” criminals. However, such a contention fails to consider that there are many varieties of upperworld criminality and that the punitiveness of the public may differ markedly according to the type of offense involved. Based on a 1981 survey conducted in Galesburg, Illinois, we have attempted to investigate whether the criminal sanctions prescribed by citizens will vary when the broad category of white-collar crime is “dissected” into its component types. The data suggest that (1) there is considerable variation in punitiveness by type of offense; (2) while street crimes are generally given the harshest sentences, violent forms of white-collar illegality are accorded severe sanctions that exceed those meted out for some F.B.I, crimes; and (3) there is little support for the notion that the public responds leniently to upperworld crime.