首页 敲诈勒索罪案例分析

敲诈勒索罪案例分析

举报
开通vip

敲诈勒索罪案例分析敲诈勒索罪案例分析 华硕女孩黄静事件读后感及案例分析 一、 基本案情 2006年2月9日,21岁的大三女生黄静购买了一台华硕笔记本电脑,价值两万零九百元,买回来的当天,黄静就发现电脑有问题,蓝屏死机没有办法开机。她几次把电脑送到华硕维修部送修,在一次维修过程中,华硕工程师将她电脑中的原装2.0G cpu更换成2.13G cpu,但问题仍然没有得到解决。 为此,她请来了母亲的朋友,曾经任中华网笔记本频道总监的周成宇。周成宇说,工程样品处理器性能不稳定,是严禁销售给用户的,华硕在维修过程中给黄静换了一个工程样品...

敲诈勒索罪案例分析
敲诈勒索罪案例分析 华硕女孩黄静事件读后感及案例分析 一、 基本案情 2006年2月9日,21岁的大三女生黄静购买了一台华硕笔记本电脑,价值两万零九百元,买回来的当天,黄静就发现电脑有问题,蓝屏死机没有办法开机。她几次把电脑送到华硕维修部送修,在一次维修过程中,华硕工程师将她电脑中的原装2.0G cpu更换成2.13G cpu,但问题仍然没有得到解决。 为此,她请来了母亲的朋友,曾经任中华网笔记本频道总监的周成宇。周成宇说,工程样品处理器性能不稳定,是严禁销售给用户的,华硕在维修过程中给黄静换了一个工程样品处理器,是欺诈消费者的行为。之后两天,周成宇正式成为黄静的代理人,开始了与华硕的谈判。在谈判过程中,周成宇和黄静提出,向华硕索赔500万美金,并提出,如果和解失败,将会把此事向媒体曝光。几次谈判两方都没有达成和解,而在最后一次3月7号的谈判中,周成宇和黄静当场被警察带走,罪名是涉嫌敲诈勒索。 在被关押十个月以后,黄静被取保候审,随后海淀区检察院认为此案事实不清,证据不足,作出了不起诉的决定,黄静被无罪释放。黄静聘请了律师,向海淀区检察院申请国家赔偿。 今年9月,北京市海淀区检察院出示的刑事赔偿确认书中认定:黄静的行为是维权过度,不属于敲诈勒索犯罪。 poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 二、敲诈勒索罪的行为方式归纳及其评析 关于敲诈勒索罪的行为方式和客观表现,在现实生活中不外乎以下几种,笔者将司法实务中不同类型的、具有代表性的案例一一列举之。 1、一般性(典型)敲诈勒索举例: 案例一(以下简称“冰红茶索赔案”): 2003年7月2日在江苏省某市做生意的李某到某晚报杂志社投诉说,自己先后于同年5月和6月在超市购买某品牌的冰红茶,里面都有苍蝇。李某说第一次发现后立即就向生产厂家投诉,该公司总部派人来处理,向李某赔偿1000元现金。第二次发现苍蝇后,李某再次向该公司联系,对方不但拒绝赔偿,反而说上次的事情还没完,并说要追回“赔偿”的1000元钱。李某将后一次买的瓶子里有苍蝇的冰红茶拿给报社的编辑们看,并气氛的在报社一再强调:“我不要赔偿,我就要你们把它曝光”。接到晚报的电话后,该公司的部门经理王某前来处理,但王某和李某对此事各执一词,双方争论的焦点是该公司在生产过程中不慎使苍蝇飞进瓶里,又偏偏被李某两次买到?还是李某将苍蝇放入瓶中,再利用某种手段将瓶盖复原,其后,该市公安局的技术人员对李某所购买的冰红茶的瓶盖痕迹进行了科学检验,认定李某在瓶盖上造假。同年7月11日,李某承认了自己在瓶里放苍蝇的事实。李某因涉嫌敲诈勒索罪被警方刑事拘留。 2、消费纠纷领域过度维权导致涉嫌“敲诈勒索”举例: 案例二(以下简称“月饼索赔案”): 2004年9月13日,吴征在沈阳市中街购买了该市某食品厂生产的20块月饼。在吃月饼时发现有一块月饼陷中有月饼皮。他因此怀疑该月饼是陈陷制作,于是向厂家索赔。并和厂家说不给赔偿就找媒体曝光。该厂负责人表示“不要曝光,可以给月饼”。吴征拒绝,并要求赔偿5000块钱存到卡里,于是双方约定见面详谈。9月15日下午吴征如约与该食品厂的负责人见面,经讨价还价后,吴征拿到4000元的赔偿金。然而,当吴征将钱装入口袋时,被冲出的公安人员poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 抓获。原来食品厂方面认为吴征的行为是敲诈勒索,在接到电话时就报了警。2005年2月,该市某区人民检察院对吴征提起了公诉,检查机关认定:吴征以购买月饼存有质量问题向报社曝光为要挟,使用银行卡卡帐户敲诈该市食品厂4000元。其以非法占有为目的,使用要挟的方法,应当以敲诈勒索罪追究刑事责任。此案于2005年3月8日在该区法院开庭,但是在开庭前,检察机关有撤销诉讼。因为在调查的过程中,检察机关发现一些证明其犯罪的证据有所缺失,因此决定销案,并要求公安机关进行证据补充。 3、涉性纠纷领域敲诈勒索举例: 案例三(以下简称“偷拍敲诈案”): 2009年6月,成都武侯区县警方接到一系列报案,案件 内容 财务内部控制制度的内容财务内部控制制度的内容人员招聘与配置的内容项目成本控制的内容消防安全演练内容 大体上一致:本地屡次发生专门偷拍到酒店开房的男女“偷欢场面”、用以对当事人进行敲诈勒索的犯罪行为。武侯警方历时3个多月将5名犯罪嫌疑人抓获。据犯罪嫌疑人交代,自2008年底以来,采用到酒店开房后将摄像头安装到隔壁房间的手段,偷拍、偷录了众多偷欢男女的性爱场景,然后将此“淫照”发给被其偷拍的当事人,分别敲诈勒索1万元到5万元不等的钱财,令人震惊的是,这伙犯罪嫌疑人居然是多次顺利得手,原因就是受害人大都选择“花钱保平安”。 案例四(以下简称“捉奸敲诈案”): 家住哈尔滨市的迟某原本与妻子感情很好,但是后来发现妻子有意的躲避自己。经过调查发现,妻子与做生意的李某有婚外情。2007年12月,迟某谎称要出差,3天后晚上才能回家。当晚,迟某妻子便与李某私会,并留宿在李某办公司内。次日凌晨2时左右,迟某带领8人拿着相机强行闯进了李某的办公室,拍照之后,对李某进行一段拳打脚踢,并索要赔偿。最后李某同意支付3万元钱,并给迟某写了一张欠条。两天后迟某向李某要钱,李某给迟某5000元,事后李某向警方报警,迟某因涉嫌敲诈勒索罪被刑事拘留。 以上所举的案例基本上囊括了敲诈勒索犯罪行为的类型和种类。这里笔者对于以上的几种情况做具体分析: poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 第一,对于典型的敲诈勒索案件如案例一指出的“冰红茶索赔案”来讲几乎是没有任何争议的,原因就是行为人采用弄虚作假、欺诈的方式,人为的制造事端,且以此为要挟的手段进行勒索,从而引起被害人主观上的恐惧而支付款项或者拒绝支付款项,无论支付与否,这种行为都完全符合敲诈勒索的犯罪构成要件。 第二,对于消费领域内的维权过度行为引起的敲诈勒索案件的认定,现在司法实务界以及理论界基本上达成了共识:类似于“月饼索赔案”,是不宜引进刑事法以敲诈勒索罪进行否定性评价,而仅仅是民事上的过度维权行为。有些学者认为,消费领域内的“漫天要价”、不切实际的惩罚性赔偿要求,仅仅是作为权利人(债权人)基于因消费品提供者违反买卖合同义务而产生的债务的权利行使,即使此权利所指向的标的超出了债务者的预料范围,那也不能抹杀权利者权利(私权)行使的正当性和意思自治的自由。更有学者指出,不能把权利者的权利与权利指向的权利标的混为一谈,不能把标的额的高低作为判定债权债务关系是否存在的标准。如果只是因为赔偿的数额高就将索赔认定为以非法占有为目的,则意味着对私法自治原则的彻底否定,也就等于向世人宣告债权主张必须要得到债务人的认同,未得到认同的权利主张就是涉嫌敲诈勒索的行为。 第三,对于涉性类的敲诈勒索行为,现在理论界和司法实务界的基本观点还是倾向于成立敲诈勒索罪。笔者认为,对于此类涉性敲诈勒索的案件应该坚持具体案件具体分析的立场,毕竟对于涉性案件敲诈勒索的情况还是各不相同的,文章下面将结合有关敲诈勒索罪的理论进行更为细致、合理的认定和解释。 三、敲诈勒索罪入罪条件的理论反思 虽然立法对于敲诈勒索罪没有做具体的界定,但在理论界对于此罪的界定基本上达成共识。 如陈兴良教授认为,敲诈勒索罪是指以非法占有为目的,对被害人使用威胁或者要挟的方法,强索公私财物,数额较大的行为。张明楷教授从构成要素角度更为细致的指出,敲诈勒索罪是指以非法占有为目的,对他人实行威胁,索取数额较大的公私财物的行为。 poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 敲诈勒索罪的基本结构是:对他人实施威胁——对方产生恐惧心理——对方基于恐惧心理处分财产——行为人或者第三人获得财产——被害人财产遭受损失。 通过对张、陈所界定的关于敲诈勒索罪概念的分析,笔者初步得出结论:敲诈勒索罪的客观方面“威胁”或者“要挟”、“索取”或者“强索”是不同意义、不同性质的行为,有必要结合有关理论对于敲诈勒索罪客观方面的行为、被害人先行行为的性质和对敲诈勒索发生的作用以及行为人主观上的非法占有目的进行综合性的理论反思。 1、根据敲诈勒索行为发生的原因不同,可以分为有被害人先行行为引起的敲诈勒索和无先行行为而发生的敲诈勒索。近代西方刑法学著名学者麦兹格(Meger, Edmund)曾深刻的指出:因为违法的实质内容是侵害法益,原则上必须在行为的客观方面进行价值判断。的确,判断行为人是否构成犯罪首先要考虑、评价的当属其行为的客观方面的性质。但是笔者认为,在评价行为人行为之性质时,还应该考虑行为人为此行为的诸多背景因素,被害人的先行行为就是最有价值的组成部分。如前所述,以及文章第一部分所列举的六种类型的案例来看,敲诈勒索发生的原因无非就是两大类:一是缺乏被害人先行行为的、行为人纯粹主导的敲诈勒索,如“冰红茶索赔案”、“偷拍敲诈案”;二是与被害人的先行行为密切相关而引起的、行为人基于某种自认为是正当目的的“勒索”行为,如“月饼索赔案”、“捉奸敲诈案”。两种敲诈勒索行为在性质和内容上都有所差异,刑法理论和司法实践应该注意到这一点。具体内容下文将结合其他要素进行细致阐述。 2、被害人基于被“要挟”而产生“恐惧”及其程度分析。在敲诈勒索罪的客观方面,“威胁”作为入罪的条件是没问题的,由于本文讨论的案例基本都是“要挟”型的,所以对于“威胁”型胁迫就不再讨论。行为人构成敲诈勒索罪所要求的“要挟”行为及其对被害人发生作用,使其产生恐惧心理,基于此恐惧心理而被迫交付财物,这是敲诈勒索罪的经典表述。这里被害人的“恐惧”无疑是构成敲诈勒索罪的本质内容与核心要件。但是,“被害人恐惧”到底是什么概念,poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 以及如何来确定其内涵,是判断被害人是否“恐惧”所必须要考虑的内容。笔者认为,敲诈勒索中被害人的恐惧应该体现在以下两个方面: 第一、行为人“要挟”的内容应该具有强制性。所谓“要挟”内容的强制性是指,行为人对于所发出的要挟内容是完全掌握控制的,被害人没有任何讨价还价的余地。譬如在“冰红茶索赔案”中,行为人“要挟”被害人,不赔钱、不给“处理”就要曝光,被害人必须严格依照其不法要求进行支付赔偿才得以脱身。 第二、行为人“要挟”的内容以及解决 措施 《全国民用建筑工程设计技术措施》规划•建筑•景观全国民用建筑工程设计技术措施》规划•建筑•景观软件质量保证措施下载工地伤害及预防措施下载关于贯彻落实的具体措施 应该不具有选择性。行为人在向被害人发出“要挟”内容时,应该是确定的、无其他选择性方式的要求,而不是被害人能够左右的。从这个角度反观“月饼索赔案”,其就不符合“要挟”内容及其解决措施不具有选择性的标准。因为,从事实上看,月饼生产厂家在纠纷发生后都是积极的与行为人进行斡旋、调解的,只是在调解不成时才引发所谓的“敲诈勒索”。从这点出发,被害人此时的“恐惧心理”根本不具有紧迫性和确定性,因为被害人为应对此胁迫时还拥有其他选择性、替代性的处理方式。 从以上两个方面看,结合有被害人先行行为引起的敲诈勒索和无先行行为引起的敲诈勒索两种不同类型的敲诈勒索的客观行为,笔者认为:在有被害人先行行为引起的敲诈勒索纠纷中(“月饼索赔案”、 “捉奸敲诈案”),被害人基于胁迫而产生的“恐惧”不是刑法中敲诈勒索罪的恐惧,因为其中掺杂着被害人试图以其他选择性模式解决其先行行为造成的后果的种种表现;而无先行行为引起的敲诈勒索的纠纷中(“冰红茶索赔案”、“偷拍敲诈案”),被害人因胁迫而无法改变现状的“恐惧”才是刑法中敲诈勒索罪意义上的“恐惧”,两者反映在刑法规范上应该有所甄别。 从上述的分析中可以发现,存在被害人先行行为而引起的敲诈勒索行为的认定应该与普通型的敲诈勒索行为应该予以区别。其中,对于消费纠纷领域内因为消费品生产者的原因行为,如提供伪劣商品、掺杂产假商品乃至给消费者带来损失而消费者借此机会进行“过度维权”(一般提出的赔偿数额远远超出生产者的预期)而涉嫌敲诈勒索的情况,理论界以及司法实务界现在基本达成了一致,即:poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 消费纠纷领域内的过度维权不符合刑法中敲诈勒索罪的构成要件,均作出罪处理。 四、涉性纠纷领域敲诈勒索罪的区别认定 在以上所列举的涉性纠纷领域涉嫌敲诈勒索的典型案件中,也应该在理论 总结 初级经济法重点总结下载党员个人总结TXt高中句型全总结.doc高中句型全总结.doc理论力学知识点总结pdf 、认定中有所区别。为了更好的研究、探索涉性敲诈勒索案件的性质之各异不同,笔者以此“偷拍敲诈案”、“捉奸敲诈案”为例,具体探讨“涉性敲诈勒索”的构成要件。 1、涉性纠纷涉嫌敲诈勒索的客观条件——“胁迫”以及产生的“恐惧”分析。现实生活中类似于丈夫“捉奸”后的当事人——妻子、奸夫——的表现都是惊恐万分,无一不乞求捉奸者的原谅。捉奸者与当事人之间的纠纷矛盾之解决一般情况是有以下两个渠道:第一,奸夫为保全声名不为自己家人、单位知晓而主动求助捉奸者原谅,原谅达成的代价往往是一笔数额不菲的赔偿金。也就是说,某些有权有势有地位的奸夫在事情败露之后往往会主动送上一笔钱以求得捉奸 强奸勒索案”即为此类。第二,妻子、奸夫奸情败露后,捉奸者予以保密,如“ 者往往会恼羞成怒,先是对妻子、奸夫暴打以示惩戒,然后再向奸夫提出精神赔偿。如若奸夫不允,那么捉奸者就“要挟”将此丑事让其家人、单位等不特定的社会群体知晓,使其身败名裂。奸夫迫于这种压力,会不情愿的与捉奸者就赔偿数额讨价还价,最后在双方都能达成一致的数额内完成解决问题的妥协,如“捉奸敲诈案”就是这种情况。对于这两种情况,如果奸夫事后反悔,向公安机关报警说是被敲诈勒索,按照现阶段的刑事立法和司法实践,作为敲诈勒索罪应该是没有问题。但是笔者认为,这种情况应该在理论上作更深入、更细致、更实质的探究。具体到敲诈勒索罪成立的前提条件——胁迫以及被害人的恐惧因素上,笔者认为,以上两种具体情况的性质均不符合敲诈勒索罪中所要求的被害人“恐惧”的要义。 承前文所述,敲诈勒索罪中被害人的“恐惧”要素是基于行为人对于被害人的威胁、要挟等手段使其在面对被胁迫之时缺失任何意义上的选择性行为,且具有强制性和紧迫性的极度心理感应,没有任何退步、商讨的余地。反观上述两种poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 情形,第一种情形中奸夫在捉奸者还未提及以何种方式解决问题之时就主动以赔偿金的方式求其原谅的行为,在刑法意义上绝对不是此处的“受到胁迫”,更不是“恐惧”,而是对于自己先行行为所造成后果的一种自我弥补,当然这种弥补的方式要得到捉奸者的认可;对于第二种情形,捉奸者与奸夫经过讨价还价对于赔偿金的数额达成一致,在本质上与第一种情形是类似的,不同的是以财物赔偿的解决方式是捉奸者提出而被奸夫所附议、认可而已。奸夫对于捉奸者提出的财物赔偿要求不是完全不同意,只是在数额方面有所保留,待双方达成妥协的一致性意见时,此时的奸夫的行为性质完全和第一种情形相同,即对自己先行行为及其后果的一种补救,与敲诈勒索罪中的“恐惧”心理相差太远。 再从犯罪的本质——法益侵害说——的角度分析。所谓法益侵害,是指行为在造成法律所保护的生活利益被侵害或者引起危险时给予的否定性评价,以凸显被损害的法益自身的重要性。结合此概念分析上文中提到的“偷拍敲诈案”、 偷拍敲诈案”中行为人采用不法手段掌控被害“捉奸敲诈案”、的案件可得:“ 人的“秘密”而向其索要财物,被害人在缺失任何原因行为的情况下遭遇此劫,这完全是行为人以非法占有为目的侵财的犯罪 计划 项目进度计划表范例计划下载计划下载计划下载课程教学计划下载 ,无疑是侵犯了被害人的财产 被害人”(奸夫或者强奸者)在被捉权法益;而捉奸敲诈案”则有所不同,因为“ 奸后,往往是采取主动赔钱求得原谅或者是与捉奸者就赔偿数额达成协议而就此事顺利脱身,这种情况就很难理解为对其财产权法益的侵害。 2、涉性纠纷涉嫌敲诈勒索的主观条件——“以非法占有为目的”的分析 上述案例中的 “捉奸敲诈案”之所以不同与敲诈勒索罪的入罪之构成,一则不满足敲诈勒索罪客观方面行为人“胁迫”的表现以及被害人基于胁迫而“恐惧”的心理反应的认定;二则并不符合敲诈勒索罪中的主观要素——以非法占有为目的。刑法中以非法占有为目的是指,行为人在合法获利行为缺位的情况下,通过某种刑法界定的手段进行非法谋财的动机和目标。“非法占有为目的”的合法前因性行为缺失,行为人无端的采用非法手段谋取利益是其本质体现。如盗窃、抢劫、抢夺、诈骗等侵财行为均是行为人主观上非法占有为目的的体现。因为行为人的偷抢行为本身就是非正当的,没有任何前行为意义上的合法要素,当然认定为以非法占有为目的,敲诈勒索罪中也是有相当一部分犯罪行为是可以poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 认定到此性质的行为中去,如上述举的“冰红茶索赔案”、“偷拍敲诈案”,因为在原本完好的饮料里投放苍蝇、对于非婚性行为进行偷拍并以此为手段对被害人进行威胁、要挟,在前因行为上就注定了其非法、不正当的性质,自然成立主观上的以非法占有为目的。 但是,笔者上文中提到的 “捉奸敲诈案”与此不同。首先,在此类案件中,捉奸者(往往是丈夫)非但未实施非法、不正当的前因行为,反而因为妻子与他人通奸,对于捉奸者的感情伤害是十分巨大的。待捉奸者发现奸情继而揪出奸夫后,采用财物赔偿的方式与其对于解决问题达成妥协,这在本质上应该是一种债权债务关系。虽然此处的“债权债务关系”并非源自法律的明文规定和授权,但是以法理的视角分析不难看出,捉奸者(丈夫)因妻子的奸情而在感情上无疑会受到重创,这种合理范围内且为双方达成合意的精神损失赔偿的权利主张应该是有法理依据的。 其次,从刑法理论上讲,敲诈勒索罪中的“非法占有为目的”,是非法定的目的犯。所谓非法定的目的犯是指,在其内部结构上,它属于将结果作为目的的犯罪。因此,在主观目的的确定上,由于在将结果作为目的的犯罪中存在着与相应主观目的对应的客观因素,即在此种场合,由于行为与目的之间是原因与结果的关系,所以也就不必再额外证明结果的存在,发生了原因行为就通常性的认定发生了结果。也就是说在此种目的犯中,只要存在着相应的客观行为(原因),就推定为也存在着相应的目的(结果)。在“捉奸敲诈案”中,捉奸者提出的赔偿要求或者是奸夫主动提出的赔偿愿望本身就不具有胁迫的强制性和无法选择性,双方对于涉性纠纷以财物赔偿的方式达成一致的作为是双方当事人尤其是“赔偿者”对于其先行行为进行处理的价值权衡的真实意思表示和倾向性选择。因此从这个角度讲,“现有的客观现实不但不能认定目的的存在,也不构成基础事实从而也无法推出非法占有目的的存在,则相应的主观目的也就不存在,从而犯罪不成立。” 再者,刑法意义上的敲诈勒索罪所要求的“以非法占有为目的”作为非法定目的犯,其“目的”内涵是应该包含在直接故意的范畴内,也就是说主观上的目的是直接故意的体现和追求的价值取向。分析类似于 “捉奸敲诈案”中的索要poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 赔偿金的行为,表面上似乎是“以非法占有为目的”进行索取,但是在实质意义上看来,这种非法占有的目的并不是纯粹基于直接故意的非法占有,而是对于被索取者因其先行行为的故意或者过失行为导致某种后果而进行索要精神赔偿、补偿。这种“事出有因”的索赔行为虽然不为法律所提倡,但是作为一种私权权利的伸张和扩展,同样也不应该受到法律的责难,尤其是以严厉苛刻的刑事法律进行积极的否定性评价。 从规范意义和实质意义的双重角度来讲,笔者对于司法实践中类似于、“捉奸敲诈案”中的索要赔偿金的行为的性质与敲诈勒索罪罪质成立的条件做了综合的分析和思考,并初步得出结论: “捉奸敲诈案”中的索要赔偿金的行为在客观上的“胁迫”行为及其对被勒索人所造成的“恐惧”与刑法意中敲诈勒索罪的实质要件——被害人给予恐惧交付财物中的“恐惧”是有着根本区别的,因为前者的“恐惧”程度明显畸轻,被勒索人交付财物与其说是因为恐惧被揭露告发不如说是对于其自身过错的一种自我救济和弥补,不具有刑法真正意义上的法益侵害性;在主观要素的认定方面,“勒索者”勒索财物的目的并非完全是非法、无故占有他人财物,而是对于自己权利的一种不为法律所提倡但也不应为法律尤其是刑律所禁止的行为,因为这与刑法上敲诈勒索罪直接故意支配下非法占有目的是有着质的区别。 综上观点,笔者认为,基于敲诈勒索行为的发生方式以及发生学原因各有不同,刑法对于司法实务中的敲诈勒索行为也应该作区别性的认定,对于某些客观行为之性质严重、主观取财目的明显的行为理应归罪;但是对于客观行为有情可原且是基于被勒索人的先行行为而发生的情况,主观上的取财目的不明显而只是索要赔偿对价,且为被勒索人所接受认可的,刑法就应该保持谦抑和克制。 五、余论 具体问题具体分析的唯物辩证主义理论在刑法适用中也应该得到有效的体现。张明楷教授也曾指出,对待刑法学的理论和实践问题,要心中充满正义,目光始终停留在事实与规范中间。纵观司法实践中形形色色的敲诈勒索案件,从客观表现和主观目的上来讲,诸类案件在性质上还是有区别的。虽然刑法立法没有poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor 明确界定入刑的标准,但是在理论上对于性质不同的案件予以甄别和区分还是必要的。申言之,既然我国关于敲诈勒索罪的刑法立法采用的是简单罪状形式,无法严格依照法律界定何种性质的行为才是刑法有必要介入的领域,因此基于对具体案件性质的理论分析就显得十分必要。在分析案件事实的基础上,结合刑法中关于敲诈勒索罪的实质、合理的解释进行理论上的最终确认,是处理敲诈勒索行为之罪与非罪的必要途径。文中以现实生活中的消费纠纷领域涉嫌敲诈勒索罪之行为和涉性纠纷领域牵涉敲诈勒索罪两大类案件为研究起点,先后提出“被害人先行行为说”、“利益价值权衡说”的观点,再结合敲诈勒索罪的主客观因素的解释原理,对于某些案件作了一些出罪化的理论反思。此观点可能存在荒诞、滑稽之嫌,但是笔者认为对于不同性质、领域内的行为进行细化和区分的努力以使刑法适用臻于完美的初衷还是值得肯定的。 张娣 2014/10/14 poverty. In the area of poverty alleviation, to rely on e-commerce business park, active docking Alibaba group "rural treasure", "the stars plan" and "featured the Museum" project to accelerate the implementation of electronic commerce "hundred thousand rural village" project, free train operation staff, offering online support help for poor families, the provision of micro-credit support, helping them to use e-commerce platform to escape poverty. In poverty reduction, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, to targeted skills training and entrepreneurship training free of charge for the poor, increase employment, entrepreneurial skills, ensure the transfer of training people, poverty. In terms of student poverty, high school, vocational college students ' stipends and other costs, can be through the "one card", such as direct subsidies to households. In terms of financial poverty, in order to further increase the size of loans, expands the scope of delivery, developing industry, Enterprise provides protection for the poor. In respect of transport poverty alleviation, to solve the bottleneck in poor villages, development of transport, vigorously promoting the construction of rural roads and ordinary roads. PV poverty reduction, to support conditions of poor villages and photovoltaic system of centralized, poor construction projects, poor
本文档为【敲诈勒索罪案例分析】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
下载需要: 免费 已有0 人下载
最新资料
资料动态
专题动态
is_337177
暂无简介~
格式:doc
大小:57KB
软件:Word
页数:0
分类:
上传时间:2018-05-18
浏览量:99