经营性虚拟盘案件的刑法定性
The Criminal Law Qualification of Operating Virtual Market Case
摘要: 虚拟盘案件的刑法定性存在诈骗罪与非法经营罪的争议,主要是经营性虚拟盘案件中对平台信息虚假陈述行为、虚构形象引流并引导投资行为的行为应如何定性的问题。对徐某非法经营案中法官的观点进行检视,可以得出两条教义学规则:参考域外刑法对“事实”的研究,不确定的事实不能成为欺骗行为的内容;引入客观归责中“风险”的概念,欺骗行为应造成交易“风险”的提高。经营性虚拟盘案件中相关行为不符合欺骗行为的标准,若该当“变相期货交易”的要件,应认定非法经营罪。
Abstract: There is content about the controversy over the criminal law qualification of crime of fraud and crime of illegal business in virtual market cases. The main issue is how to qualify the behavior of false statements of platform information, and fictitious expert image to attract customers and guide investment in operating virtual market case. The examination of the judge’s opinion in Xu’s illegal business case leads to two penal dogmatic rules: uncertain facts cannot become the content of deception behavior; deception behavior should increase the “risk” of transactions. The relevant behaviors in operating virtual market case do not meet the standards of deception behavior. If they meet the requirements of “disguised futures trading”, they should be recognized as illegal business crimes.
文章引用:周博文. 经营性虚拟盘案件的刑法定性[J]. 争议解决, 2023, 9(5): 2142-2149. https://doi.org/10.12677/DS.2023.95291

参考文献

[1] 公安部刑侦局. 图说电信网络诈骗五大高发类案[EB/OL].
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/5jCkfkUNkrbrXrFRa4_xMw, 2022-05-11.
[2] 中华人民共和国最高人民法院刑事审判庭. 刑事审判参考(总第113集) [M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2018.
[3] 祝惠春. 场外配资可能血本无归[N]. 经济日报, 2022-06-15(007).
[4] 北京商报金融调查小组. 200倍杠杆随意加点 期货配资的黑色套路[N]. 北京商报, 2021-07-05(007).
[5] 张明楷. 论诈骗罪的欺骗行为[J]. 甘肃政法学院学报, 2005(3): 1-13.
[6] 郭莉. 诈骗罪客观构成要件中的“事实” [J]. 北方法学, 2018, 12(4): 90-102.
[7] 陈少青. 刑民界分视野下诈骗罪成立范围的实质认定[J]. 中国法学, 2021(1): 285-304.
[8] 何荣功. 民事欺诈与刑事诈骗的类型化区分[J]. 交大法学, 2023(1): 114-128.
[9] 刘艳红. 客观归责理论: 质疑与反思[J]. 中外法学, 2011, 23(6): 1216-1236.
[10] 周光权. 客观归责论在财产犯罪案件中的运用[J]. 比较法研究, 2018(3): 34-45.
[11] 金懿. 虚假金融投资“杀猪盘”行为的刑法定性[J]. 犯罪研究, 2022(4): 92-99.