earticle

영어

Indicative abstract: Financial security ought to be built on a strict financial legal system; the criminal law should also have effective regulations and governance on fighting the financial crimes. Under the background of financial marketization, some potential financial risks transform into financial crimes. Taking the tendency of functionalism of the criminal law into account, financial crime circle has the possibility of being further expanded improperly and the serious divorce between financial administrative regulations and the criminal law. As a result, we need to re-examine the administrative crime theory. The difficult problem of criminalization that the modern criminal legislation confronted is not against the natural crime but the administrative crime. With the development of society, the proportion of administrative crime in criminal law regulation is increasing, even tends to be more than natural crime. The legislation of the administrative crime is also different from the mala in se and has its own characteristics; that is, what kind of behavior constitutes a crime and what does harm to the society differ on the different laws in different countries or at different times in the same country. In terms of the nature of administrative crime, the criminal law uses the qualitative and quantitative analysis pattern to define the crimes, which includes both the study on the nature of behavior and the comment on the “quantity” of the behavior. It is significant that reaching a certain number decides whether some behavior has constituted a crime or not. Criminalization bases on the fact of having the “serious social harmfulness” in the quantitative and qualitative factors. In terms of the infringement of the legal interest by administrative crimes, the legal order formed by administrative law should be taken as the form of the legal interest and the secondary legal interest by administrative crimes infringed. In terms of financial crime, a typical kind of administrative crimes, the legislators regard the financial management order as the first legal interest to protect (it is the sole legal interest in some charges), but the specific property interest as the secondary-protection interest. However, the legal interest should be comprehended as the abstract social order value protected by the laws, which will benefit the whole society and may be assigned to the individual or entity as the subject of the legal interest. From the birth of the theory of risk society , all the countries spare no effort in using the legal means to regulate the risks, and there is no exception in the criminal legislation, which led directly to the increasing proportion of administrative legislation and the expansion of the criminal law. In terms of the criminal policy which influences the legislation of administrative criminal, to some extent, the theory of risk criminal law, has its rationality; however, the legislative practice of the administrative crime must be cautious and rational, instead of expanding blindly and unrestrainedly.

중국어

金融安全需要建立在严密的金融法律体系之上，刑法也应当对金融犯罪进行有效的规制与治理。金融市场化背景下，部分潜在的金融风险转化为金融犯罪，考虑到我国刑法的机能主义倾向，金融犯罪圈有被进一步不当扩大、金融行政法规与刑法有严重脱节的可能，因此需要重新审视行政犯理论。 现代刑法立法所面对的犯罪化难题并非针对自然犯，而是行政犯。随着社会的发展，行政犯在刑法规范中的比重日益增大，甚至有超过自然犯的趋势。行政犯的立法自然也不同于自然犯，具有其自身的特点，即哪种行为构成犯罪，对社会有何种危害性，因不同国家或同一国家不同时期的法律规定不同而有所不同。 就行政犯的性质而言，我国刑法对犯罪的界定则采用定性+定量的分析模式，既对行为的性质进行考察，也对行为所包含的“数量”进行评价，是否达到一定的数量对决定某些行为是否构成犯罪具有重要意义。其犯罪化的基础是在定量及定性两个因素上都具备“严重的社会危害性”。 就行政犯侵犯的法益而言，应该将行政法律所形成的法秩序作为行政犯罪所侵犯的形式法益与次要法益。就金融犯罪这种典型的行政犯而言，立法者将国家对金融管理的秩序视为刑法应首要保护的法益（某些罪名中是唯一的法益），而具体的财产利益仅为次要保护法益。但是，法益应当被理解为法所保护的社会秩序抽象价值，这些价值的维护对社会有利，并且可能被指派给个人或整体作为法益主体。 从风险社会理论诞生起，各国在运用法律手段规制风险方面都不遗余力，在刑事立法方面也不例外，这样就直接导致了行政犯立法比重越来越大，刑法不断得到扩张。就影响行政犯立法的刑事政策而言，风险刑法理论虽具一定程度的合理性，但行政犯罪的立法实践必须做到谨慎、理性，而不能盲目地、不加节制地扩张。