虚假诉讼罪时效问题研究

Research on the Limitation Period of the Crime of False Litigation

摘要: 虚假诉讼罪自增设以来，其时效认定问题在司法实践中陷入诸多困境，严重影响案件处理的统一性与公正性。具体而言，溯及力认定存在冲突，对于《刑法修正案(九)》施行前实施的虚假诉讼行为，部分司法机关突破“从旧兼从轻”原则扩大追溯范围，导致同案不同判；追诉期限起点界定标准不一，既有以“提起诉讼之日”为准，也有以“法院作出生效裁判之日”为依据，引发定罪量刑失衡；追诉期限终点认定受刑民交叉程序影响，民事审理阶段是否计入追诉期限、“逃避侦查”情形如何界定等问题缺乏明确指引，致使部分案件出现超期追诉或放纵犯罪的极端情况。对于溯及力的认定，应摒弃不合理逻辑，坚守“行为时法与裁判时法规制同一行为”的适用前提，对旧法无规定的单纯虚假诉讼行为作无罪处理，对竞合或采用财产类犯罪手段的虚假诉讼行为直接适用旧法；对于追诉起点的确定，虚假诉讼罪应为行为犯，以“法院受理案件之日”为既遂与时效起算点，同时需结合实质可罚性判断排除轻微行为，特殊类型虚假诉讼应区分情形确定起算时间；对于追诉终点的认定，应采用“移送起诉为原则，逃避侦查为例外”的标准，兼顾督促司法机关履职与保障行为人时效利益，并结合刑民交叉特性完善移送机制与时限要求。研究旨在构建科学合理的虚假诉讼罪时效认定规则，实现惩治虚假诉讼行为与保障人权的平衡，为司法实践提供指引，同时为应对线上化、跨境化等新型虚假诉讼的时效认定问题奠定基础。

Abstract: Since the crime of false litigation was established, the determination of its limitation period has encountered numerous difficulties in judicial practice, which seriously affects the uniformity and impartiality of case handling. Specifically, there are conflicts in the determination of retroactivity: for false litigation acts committed before the implementation of the Ninth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, some judicial organs have violated the principle of “observing the old law while applying the lighter punishment” and expanded the scope of prosecution, leading to inconsistent judgments on similar cases. There is no uniform standard for defining the starting point of the prosecution time limit—it is either counted from “the date when the lawsuit is filed” or “the date when the court renders an effective judgment”, resulting in imbalances in conviction and sentencing. The determination of the end point of the prosecution time limit is affected by the overlapping criminal and civil procedures; without clear guidelines on issues such as whether the civil trial stage should be included in the prosecution time limit and how to define the circumstance of “evading investigation”, some cases have resulted in extreme situations such as prosecution beyond the time limit or indulgence of crimes. Regarding the determination of retroactivity, we should abandon unreasonable logic and adhere to the applicable premise that “the law at the time of the act and the law at the time of the judgment regulate the same act”. Pure false litigation acts not stipulated by the old law shall be acquitted; for false litigation acts involving concurrence of crimes or adoption of property crime means, the old law shall be directly applied. For the determination of the starting point of prosecution, the crime of false litigation shall be regarded as a conduct crime, with “the date when the court accepts the case” as the point of accomplishment and the starting point of the limitation period. Meanwhile, we need to combine the judgment of substantial punishability to exclude minor acts, and determine the starting time of prosecution for special types of false litigation by distinguishing different circumstances. For the determination of the end point of prosecution, we should adopt the standard of “taking transfer for prosecution as the principle and evading investigation as the exception”, balance the supervision of judicial organs to perform their duties and the protection of the actor’s rights based on the limitation period, and improve the transfer mechanism and time limit requirements in light of the characteristics of overlapping criminal and civil procedures. The purpose of this study is to construct scientific and reasonable rules for determining the limitation period of the crime of false litigation, balance the punishment of false litigation acts and the protection of human rights, provide guidance for judicial practice, and lay a foundation for addressing the issue of limitation period determination in new types of false litigation such as online and cross-border false litigation.