（刑法学专业论文）徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪研究.pdf

摘 要 摘 要 行政执法人员徇私舞弊， 对本应移交司法机关追究刑事责任的刑 事案件不予移交的行为， 是典型的滥用行政执法职权的行为， 现行刑 法第 402 条将其明确规定为徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪。 鉴于目前该 罪的研究过于浅显且非系统化,在理论和实践层面存在诸多争议, 因 而使得该罪的研究成为必要和可行。 本文从徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪的历史沿革和立法理由入手, 通过对该罪犯罪构成要件的解析以及司法认定与刑罚适用的准确把 握， 就该罪的立法完善提出对策与建议， 以期实现设立本罪的价值取 向。 笔者认为， 徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪主要有三个方面的立法理 由， 其渎职个罪地位逐步确立的演变过程， 反映了我国法制建设日益 完善的趋向，一定程度上制约了行政权对司法权的非法侵害。 本罪犯罪构成诸要件立法上的某些不足和人们认识上的误区 ， 给本罪的司法适用带来困境。为此，笔者认为，本罪的客体应当是国 家的刑事司法制度和司法机关正常的刑事司法职权以及国家行政执 法主体依法行政观念、 国家刑事法律的权威与尊严。 本罪犯罪对象是 依法应当移交司法机关追究刑事责任的 “刑事案件” ， 而非单纯的 “犯 罪嫌疑人”。本罪客观方面关键应把握好徇私、不移交、前提罪三个 构成要件，其中徇私的内涵有徇个人之私与徇小团体或单位之私两 种；“不移交”行为的部门指向只能是司法机关；“不移交”的时间 界限即： 行政执法人员执法中发现有严重违法情形， 应当追究刑事责 任的，即应移交司法机关，否则构成“不移交”；至于前提罪，笔者 建议赋予检察机关认定权，只要行政违法行为已超出行政处罚的范 围，实质上构成犯罪，程序上应予追究，即可认定。本罪犯罪主体是 “行政执法人员”，泛指一切依法享有和行使行政执法权的人员。对 于公安人员、 纪检、 监察人员和行政执法机关能否成为本罪主体的问 题， 笔者区分情况提出了自己的观点。 本罪的主观故意应以行政执法 人员的“明知”为前提，只要相关嫌疑 abstract it is a typical action to abuse the administrative executions of duty for those officials that have bended the law for personal or engaged in fraud, which should be handed over to judicial authorities but fail to. this kind of action is regulated as a criminal offence by article 402 of current criminal law. whereas the research on this criminal offence is too superficial and non-systematical and too many disputes are existed, either theoretically or practically, the writer believes that it is necessary and feasible to investigate this criminal. the author is trying to give suggestions on legislation perfection, by tracing its historical origins and legislative causes, analyzing its key constitutive points and an exact understanding on judicial determination and penalty applications. the aim is to set up the value orientation of this criminal. the writer believes that there existed three legislative causes of this criminal. the process that the criminal of dereliction of duty became a criminal shows a perfection way of chinas law system and to some extent, it restricted the harm to judicial rights from administrative rights. the deficiencies of the constitutive elements of the criminal and the misunderstandings made it difficulty for judicial application. the writer believes that the object should be the judicial system, judicial executions of the judicial authorities, the executive and legislative authorities conceptions to execute according to the law and the authorities of the law as well. the criminal should be the “criminal cases” that should be handed over to the judicial authorities for investigations, but not single “suspect”. as to the objective side, the key points are bending the law for personal gain, non-handover and preconditional crime, which are three composing points. the intentions of bending the law for personal gain can be separated as personal motives and motives for small group. the action of “non-handover” should only be applied to the judicial authorities. the time limitation of “non-handover” should be : as long as the administrative executive personnel found a criminal of severely harmful, he/she should hand it over to the judicial authorities, or he/she has committed a crime. as to the preconditional crime, the writer suggests endow the supervision authorities with the right of cognizance, as long as the facts evident that the actions of the administrative personal have gone up to the range of administrative punishments and thus can be defined as a crime, the preconditional crime can be cognized. the main body of the crime is “administrative executive personnel”,which includes all personnel who have and are executing the rights of execution. as to the public security personnel, discipline and supervision inspection personnel or the administrative executive authorities can be the main body or not, the writer gave his own suggestions. the willful act should have a precondition that the doer knew all conditions well. as long as the action of the related suspect goes beyond the administrative regulations and causes a crime and the doer has the ability to know all the conditions well, he/she knows that they know all the conditions subjectively. the writer made an analysis on criminal limits, identities on gross or mega cases based on his grasp of judicial identification and penal application. he also found out the similarities and differences of this criminal and related criminals and pointed out related causes on settlements of coincidences of different articles. on account of the condition the criminal cases caused by acceptance of bribe, the writer believe he/she should be punished according to the most severe criminals and should execute punishments him/her by both of the two criminals. as to the definitions of “the most severe criminals”, the writer pointed out two suggestions. he also gave his opinions on 1 徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪研究 徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪研究 提 要 提 要 行政执法人员徇私舞弊， 对本应移交司法机关追究刑事责任的刑 事案件不予移交的行为， 是典型的滥用行政执法职权的行为， 现行刑 法第 402 条将其明确规定为徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪。 鉴于目前该 罪的研究过于浅显且非系统化,在理论和实践层面存在诸多争议,笔 者试图沿着徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪立法的历史脉络， 通过对该罪 犯罪构成要件的解析以及司法认定与刑罚适用的准确把握， 就该罪的 立法完善提出对策与建议， 以期引发同仁们展开对本罪深入系统地研 讨工作，从根本上实现设立本罪的价值取向。 一、本罪的历史沿革和立法理由 （一）徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪的历史沿革（一）徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪的历史沿革 由于我国古代渎职罪中没有徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪罪名， 且 行政权与司法权并未截然分立， 所以对徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪无 从具体考量。 对徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪的立法史考量， 主要应追 溯至上个世纪中叶新中国建国以后。 自建国初期至 1979 年刑法典出台这段时期，我国单行的刑事立 法并未将从事执法公务的人员徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件的行为纳入 渎职犯罪的视野。 即使 1979 年刑法第 188 条明文规定了徇私舞弊罪， 但仅将其主体限定在司法工作人员的范畴。 全国人大常委会此后陆续 颁布的单行刑法和附属刑法， 通过扩大徇私舞弊罪的主体范围、 采用 “按照”或“比照”的方式将行政执法人员徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件 的行为纳入徇私舞弊罪的范畴予以刑事追究，一定程度上弥补了 1979 年刑法对此未予规定的不足，但有违罪刑法定原则。直至 1997 年修改刑法时，本罪的渎职个罪地位才最终得以确立。 （二）徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪的立法理由 （二）徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪的立法理由 我国立法对徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件罪长期立法放纵有其历史 2 的、 现实的原因， 行政权与司法权两权冲突所导致的危害以及现代分 权模式所要求的两权平衡必然导致立法对本罪予以刑法规制的趋向， 立足本罪客观存在之现实， 笔者认为， 现实的行政执法人员徇私舞弊 不移交刑事案件的执法腐败现象是本罪立法的形式原因,行政执法人 员徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件行为相当严重的社会危害性和行政违法 性是本罪立法的实质原因,而基于完善刑法体系之需则成为本罪立法 的重要原因。 二、犯 罪 构 成 要 件 解 析 （一）犯罪客体与对象 1、犯罪客体 （一）犯罪客体与对象 1、犯罪客体 我国理论界对本罪的客体主要有如下几种表述： 其一， 本罪的客 体是国家行政机关正常的行政执法活动和司法机关正常的刑事司法 活动。 其二，本罪的客体是国家行政机关的正常活动和国家的司法 权。 其三，本罪的客体是国家行政机关的正常活动和法律权威与尊 严。 笔者认为,将本罪的客体界定为“的活动”或“法律权威与 尊严”、“国家的司法权”，显然过于宽泛，外延极宽,无法与其他 犯罪的客体相区别。 其实， 本罪的客体应当是国家的刑事司法制度和 司法机关正常的刑事司法职权以及国家行政执法主体依法行政观念、 国家刑事法律的权威与尊严。 2、犯罪对象2、犯罪对象 刑法第 402 条罪状中“依法应当移交司法机关追究刑事责任的” 修饰性规定，导致了理论界对本罪犯罪对象的争议。一种观点认为， 本罪犯罪对象应当是依法应当移交司法机关追究刑事责任的 “犯罪嫌 疑人”。另一种观点则认为，本罪的犯罪对象应当是依法移交司法机 关追究刑事责任的“刑事案件”。 赵秉志主编：渎职罪，中国人民公安大学出版社 1999 年版，第 254 页。 孙力主编：公务活动中犯罪界限的司法认定，中国检察出版社 2000 年版，第 326 页。 胡弛主编：国家工作人员滥用职权犯罪界限与定罪量刑研究，中国方正出版社 2000 年版， 第 588 页。 3 笔者认为,本罪犯罪对象是依法应当移交司法机关追究刑事责任 的“刑事案件”，而非单纯的“犯罪嫌疑人”。作为本罪犯罪对象的 “刑事案件”，系特定化的犯罪对象。首先，它必须是应当移交司法 机关追究刑事责任的 “刑事案件” ,不仅包括刑事公诉案件,也包括被 害人向人民法院提起自诉并被受理而法院通知行政执法机关及其执 法人员予以移交的刑事自诉案件。 其次， 它必须是行政执法人员在执 法过程中发现的因触犯其所执行的法律法规而构成犯罪的“刑事案 件”。 （二）客观方面（二）客观方面 本罪客观方面关键应把握好徇私、 不移交、 前提罪三个构成要件。 徇私的内涵有徇个人之私与徇小团体或单位之私两种， 行政执法人员 因徇小团体或单位之私而舞弊不移交刑事案件情节严重的行为， 应以 本罪论处。“不移交”行为作为本罪关键性的构成要件行为，其部门 指向是十分明确的，而且是唯一的，即司法机关。因此“不移交”应 当理解为不向公安机关、检察机关、人民法院这三类司法机关移交。 关于“不移交”的时间界限主要有以下三种观点：一种观点认为，行 政执法人员执法中发现有严重违法情形， 应当追究刑事责任的， 即应 移交司法机关，否则构成“不移交”；另一种观点认为，行政执法人 员应在查清全部事实，作出处理决定后移交，否则构成“不移交”； 还有一种观点认为， 行政执法人员在一定期限内不移交的， 就可认定 为“不移交”。笔者赞同第一种观点。至于前提罪，笔者建议法律赋 予检察机关认定权， 只要有充分的证据证明该行政相对人的行政违法 行为已超出行政处罚的范围，实质上构成犯罪，程序上应予追究，即 可认定该前提罪，从而为追究本罪提供前提条件。 （三）犯罪主体（三）犯罪主体 本罪的犯罪主体是 “行政执法人员” ， 理论界主要存在 “身份论” 与“职能论”的争论。笔者赞同“职能论”的观点，认为“行政执法 人员”是指一切依法享有和行使行政执法权的人员。 对于公安人员能否成为本罪主体，理论和实务界主要存在肯定 4 说、否定说、折衷说三种观点。笔者认为，折衷说甚为可取，即公安 人员若履行的是行政执法职能， 则属于本罪主体范畴； 若履行的是刑 事司法职能，则属“司法工作人员”范畴而非本罪主体。 对于纪检、 监察人员能否成为本罪主体， 也存在肯定说、 否定说、 折衷说三种不同的观点。笔者认为，从应然角度而言，纪检人员确不 同于行政执法人员，并非本罪主体，而监察人员却系行政执法人员， 能够构成本罪主体。但从实然角度来看，我国纪检、监察都是一套人 马两块牌子， 其身份双重， 区分的关键主要在于他们执行的是党的纪 律还是行政纪律或行政法规。 若执行的是党的纪律， 则是纪检人员身 份，不能构成本罪主体；若执行的是行政纪律或行政法规，则是监察 人员身份，可构成本罪主体。 对于行政执法机关能否成为本罪主体， 理论界形成了肯定说与否 定说两种截然对立的观点。 笔者认为， 行政执法机关能否成为本罪主 体虽受现行刑法单位不能构成本罪主体的限制，但确有商酌之余地。 （四）主观方面 （四）主观方面 本罪的主观方面出于故意， 且这种故意必须以行为人的“明知” 为前提。 “明知”是应当知道， 只要行政执法人员收集的证据表明嫌 疑人的行为已经超出行政法规的调整范围， 涉嫌犯罪， 而该行政执法 人员自身确已具备此种认识能力，就应该认定其主观明知。 三、司 法 认 定 与 刑 罚 适 用 （一）本罪的司法认定 1、罪与非罪的认定 （一）本罪的司法认定 1、罪与非罪的认定 作为本罪危害程度综合性指标的 “情节严重”系本罪罪与非罪的 分水岭， 最高人民检察院制定出台的 关于人民检察院直接受理立案 侦查案件立案标准的规定（试行）第二条（十）项列举了本罪“情 节严重”应予立案的 8 种情形， 较为明确地划定了本罪“情节严重” 的内涵与外延。 该立案标准虽具相当的合理性， 一定程度上解决了本 罪的司法认定问题， 但其客观存在地 3 方面问题， 亟需进一步立法予 以完善。 5 2、重、特大案件的认定 2、重、特大案件的认定 最高人民检察院在立案标准的基础上制定的 人民检察院直接受 理立案侦查的渎职侵权重特大案件标准(试行) ， 虽具相当的合理性， 一定程度上解决了本罪的司法认定问题，但其客观存在地 4 方面问 题，亦亟需立法予以完善。 3、本罪与相关犯罪之界限 3、本罪与相关犯罪之界限 以犯罪构成理论为基准，笔者紧紧抓住本罪与相关犯罪之异同， 力图找准其最显著的区分点， 并对法条竟合情形下的处理提出了相应 的理由。 4、本罪与受贿罪的关系4、本罪与受贿罪的关系 针对因受贿而徇私舞弊不移交刑事案件的情形， 笔者认为应实行 “从一重处断”，而不能实行两罪并罚。关于重罪的确定，笔者提出 了两种可资借鉴方法。 （二）本罪的刑罚适用（二）本罪的刑罚适用 刑法对本罪的刑罚规定了两个量刑档次。 笔者认为， 凡是符合立 案标准规定的 8 种情形， 均可在第一档次内判处刑罚； 凡是在立案标 准规定情形基础上造成严重后果的， 以及符合本罪重、 特大案件标准 的情形，均应在第二档次内判处刑罚。 1、本罪刑罚适用的原则1、本罪刑罚适用的原则 本罪刑罚适用的原则， 是指对本罪适用刑罚时， 司法机关及其司 法人员应当遵循的准则。 主要包括依法从严惩处的原则、 公平适用刑 罚的原则、保证协调的原则。 2、本罪刑罚适用的方法2、本罪刑罚适用的方法 笔者对本罪两档法定刑适用的情形作出了初步地分析， 并对具体 刑期的宣告提出了相应的意见。 3、严重后果的认定与本罪的刑罚适用3、严重后果的认定与本罪的刑罚适用 笔者认为， 本罪立案标准所规定的 8 种情形下所造成的后果既包 括一般后果，又包括严重后果。据此，结合本罪重、特大案件标准， 进而推定出应在第一法定刑档量刑的“一般后果”的 8 种情形，同理 7 criminal offences on non-handover cases of bending the law for personal gain and engaging in fraud an introduction it is a typical action to abuse the administrative executions of duty for those officials that have bended the law for personal or engaged in fraud, which should be handed over to judicial authorities but failed to. this kind of action is regulated as a criminal offence by article 402 of current criminal law. whereas the research on this criminal offence is too superficial and non-systematical and too many disputes are existed, either theoretically or practically, the writer is trying to give suggestions on legislation perfection, by tracing its historical origins, analyzing its key points and an exact understanding on judicial determination and penalty applications. the aim is to stimulate researches and set up the value orientation of this criminal. i. history and legislation excuses i. history whereas there existed no equivalent criminals in chinese law history, and the executive and judicial authority were not separated completely, it is difficult to find the information needed. whereas, the research begins from the founding of new china, which happened in the 1950s. from the time of new chinas founding to the year 1979,when the penal code was established, the single criminal law didnt include it to be a criminal. although the criminal offence of bending the law for personal gain and engaging in fraud was regulated by article 188, criminal law of year 1979, but the main body was limited to judicial personnel. afterwards, those single and affiliated criminal law promulgated by the standing committee of the national peoples congress, which enlarged the main body and set up a way of 8 “according” and “contrast”, thus included these actions to be criminal offences, in which way making up the deficiencies of the criminal law of the year 1979, but was against the principle of “criminals to be legalized”. it was not until the year of 1997, when the criminal law was modified, that the criminal was finally established. ii. legislation excuses the reasons of legislation delaying of this criminal can be historical and practically. and the harm caused by the conflicts of administrative and judicial authorities together with the rights balance required by modern rights model will certainly lead to legislation of this criminal. on account of the facts existed, the executive corrupts are the formal reasons, the harm to the society and the executive irregularity are the essential reasons while the necessity to perfect the criminal law system is an important reason. ii. analysis on constitutive elements of the crime i. criminal object and criminal i) criminal object the descriptions of the object can be concluded as below: a. administrative executions by administrative departments and judicial executions by judicial authorities. b. executions by administrative departments and jurisdictions. c. executions by administrative departments and the authorities of the law. it is far too general to define the object as above, whose extentions are far too wide and is difficult to distinguish with other terms. the writer believe that the object should be the judicial system, judicial executions of the judicial authorities, the executive and legislative authorities conceptions to execute according to the law and the authorities of the law as well. 9 ii) the criminal the modifying regulations of “should be handed over to the judicial authorities and to define criminal obligations”, which is presented in article 402 of the law, result in disputes of the definitions of the criminals. one of the viewpoint is that the criminals should be the “criminal suspects” who should be handed over to the judicial authorities and to define their criminal obligations. another viewpoint is that it should be the “criminal cases”. the writer agrees to the second viewpoint. the “criminal cases” should be the specific criminals. firstly, they include not only public prosecutions, but also private prosecution cases that were privately prosecuted by the victims to the courts and were accepted and were notified the administrative department and handed over to the personnel. secondly, it should be the “criminal cases” which can be defined as crimes during the procession of executions. ii. objectively as to the objective side, the key points are bending the law for personal gain, non-handover and preconditional crime, which are three composing points. the intentions of bending the law for personal gain can be separated as personal motives and motives for small group. the administrative personnel who have bended the law for gains for small group and without handover, hence cause severe harm should be punished by this article. “non-handover” should be defined non-handover to public security authorities, supervision authorities and courts as well. there are three time definitions of “non-handover” as below. a. should be handed over at once; b.should be handed over after finding out all the facts; c. should be handed over in a certain period of time. the writer agrees to the first definition. as to the preconditional crime, the writer suggests endow the supervision authorities with the right of cognizance, as long as the facts evident that 10 the actions of the administrative personal have gone up to the range of administrative punishments and thus can be defined as a crime, the preconditional crime can be cognized, which provide a precondition for this crime. iii. main body of the crime main body of the crime should be “administrative executive personnel”. there existed disputes of “identity theory” and “functional theory”. the writer agrees to the latter and the “administrative personnel” should be all that have the rights to execute the legislations. as to whether the public security personnel can be the main body of the crime, there existed positive, negative and neutral opinions. the writer agrees to the neutral opinions, that is, if the public security personal is executing the administrative executive function, he/she is included, if he public security personal is executing the penal judicial function, he/she is not included. as to whether the discipline inspection personnel or the supervision inspection personnel can be the main body of the crime, there existed positive, negative and neutral opinions, too. the writer believes that theoretically, the discipline inspection personnel can not be the main body, while the supervision inspection personnel can. but practically, both of them have double identities, the key distinguishing point lies in what function they are executing. if they are executing the function of a party member, they cant be the main body; if the are executing the function of administrative personnel, they can be the main body. as to whether the administrative executive authorities can be the main body or not, there are two different viewpoints. as there are limitations that the current penal authorities cant be the main body, still discussions can be made. iv. subjectively 11 the subjective point of this crime is willful act, and the willful act should have a precondition that the doer knew all conditions well. as long as the evidences collected by the administrative consecutive personnel show that the action of the suspect goes beyond the administrative regulations and causes a crime. besides, the doer has the ability to know all the conditions well, he/she knows that they know all the conditions subjectively. iii. judicial cognizance and penalty application i. judicial cognizance i) cognizance of criminial and innocent the definition of “severely harmful” should be recognized as the judgement of criminal or innocent, term 10,article 2 of “regulations on criminal limits for the supreme peoples procuratorates rights to accept and investigate a case (for trial implementation)” listed eight conditions to accept and defined the intension and extensions clearly. the existed cognizance has rationality and to some extend, it has solved the judicial cognizance. but there still exist three problems, which should be solved. ii) the cognizance of gross or mega cases based on the judgement, the supreme peoples procuratorate constituted “judgements on gross or mega cases of dereliction of duty or tort accepted directly by the supreme peoples procuratorate (for trial implementation) has the same features as the regulations of the above-said regulations and there existed four problems. iii) cognizance of the criminal and related criminals based on the theories of criminal constitutions, the writer is trying to find out the most distinct distinguishes, based on the similarities and differences of this criminal and related criminals and pointed out related causes on settlements of coincidences of different 12 articles. iv) relations of this criminal with the criminal on acceptance of bribe on account of the condition the criminal cases caused by acceptance of bribe, the writer believe he/she should be punished according to the most seve