电信网络诈骗关联犯罪中掩饰隐瞒犯罪所得罪的司法认定

Judicial Determination of the Crime of Concealing or Disguising Criminal Proceeds and Benefits in Telecommunications Network Fraud-Related Crimes

摘要: 电信网络诈骗呈现高发态势，其组织化、跨境化、技术化趋势使赃款流转隐蔽复杂，严重侵害公民财产权并妨碍司法秩序。在这一背景下，掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得及其收益的行为成为犯罪链条中的关键环节，如何准确适用“掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪”成为司法实践亟需解决的重要问题。尽管最高司法机关已多次修订解释，但在客体范围、客观行为认定、主体界定及主观“明知”标准等方面，仍存在理论争议与实践困境。本文结合最新司法解释与典型案例，对相关问题进行了系统梳理与分析。在客体上，强调司法秩序与被害人财产权的双重保护，采取“推定–排除”的模式认定犯罪所得；在客观方面，以“实质性妨碍追赃”作为核心标准，并进一步厘清与帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的界限；在主体上，突出职业性掩隐者与临时性协助者的区分，避免刑罚不当扩张；在主观方面，通过合理运用推定规则把握“明知”的认定边界。整体来看，应在打击犯罪与保障权利之间保持平衡，并通过案例指导、跨部门协作及技术手段完善证据体系。掩隐罪的认定不仅是切断电诈资金链的现实需求，也是刑法回应新型犯罪挑战的重要契机。

Abstract: Telecommunication network fraud is on the rise, with its organized, cross-border and technological trends making the flow of ill-gotten gains covert and complex. This has seriously infringed upon citizens’ property rights and disrupted judicial order. Against this backdrop, the act of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds and their gains has become a crucial link in the criminal chain. How to accurately apply the crime of “concealing and disguising criminal proceeds and their gains” has become an urgent issue to be addressed in judicial practice. Despite multiple revisions of the interpretation by the highest judicial authorities, there are still theoretical disputes and practical difficulties in aspects such as the scope of the object, the determination of objective acts, the definition of the subject, and the standard of subjective “knowledge”. This article systematically sorts out and analyzes the relevant issues in light of the latest judicial interpretations and typical cases. In terms of the object, it emphasizes the dual protection of judicial order and the property rights of victims. In the objective aspect, it takes whether it substantially hinders the recovery of stolen property as the core of determination and further clarifies the boundary with the crime of helping information network criminal activities. In terms of the subject, it highlights the distinction between professional concealers and temporary assistants to avoid the inappropriate expansion of criminal penalties. In the subjective aspect, it grasps the boundary of “knowledge” through the reasonable application of the presumption rule. Overall, a balance should be maintained between combating crime and safeguarding rights, and the evidence system should be improved through case guidance, cross-departmental collaboration, and technological means. The determination of the crime of concealing and disguising criminal proceeds and their gains is not only a practical need to cut off the financial chain of telecom fraud but also an important opportunity for criminal law to respond to the challenges of new types of crimes.