破产程序中涉刑债权成立和清偿的认定——以A公司破产清算案为视角
The Determination of the Establishment and Liquidation of Criminal Claims in Bankruptcy Proceedings—From the Perspective of A Company Bankruptcy Liquidation Case
摘要: 刑破交叉下,同一笔借款在不同法律关系中偿还主体不同的,自然人犯罪主体的个人犯罪意志不能否定作为特定合同相对人的法人主体。缓和的违法一元论下,借贷合同不具有刑事违法性,依照民事法律规定认定为未生效合同,借款人因违反报批义务应承担违约责任。借贷合同涉嫌刑事犯罪,必然产生不同程序交叉救济的问题,确定债权清偿办法之前需要厘清不同救济程序之间的关系,以避免重复清偿,刑事追缴退赔与破产债权救济具有互补关系,不应互相排斥。债权成立的实质落脚点在清偿办法,集资参与人应从刑事程序中退还本金,同时基于涉罪合同违约性质以及维护社会稳定之考虑,债权人可向破产企业主张不在追缴退赔之列的利息利益。
Abstract: Under the intersection of criminal law and bankruptcy law, the same loan has different repayment subjects in different legal relationships. The individual criminal will of the natural person’s criminal subject cannot deny the legal person subject as a specific contract counterpart. Under the monism of mitigating illegality, the loan contract does not have criminal illegality. According to the provisions of civil law, it is deemed to be a non-effective contract, and the borrower shall be liable for breach of contract due to violation of the obligation of approval. The loan contract is suspected of a criminal offence, which will inevitably lead to the problem of cross-relief of different procedures. Before determining the method of creditor’s rights settlement, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between different relief procedures in order to avoid repeated liquidation. Criminal recovery and bankruptcy creditor’s rights relief are complementary and should not be mutually exclusive. The essence of the establishment of the creditor’s rights is the settlement method. The fund-raising participants should return the principal from the criminal procedure. At the same time, based on the nature of the breach of the contract and the maintenance of social stability, the creditor can claim the interest that is not included in the recovery of the compensation to the bankrupt enterprise.
文章引用:帅欣. 破产程序中涉刑债权成立和清偿的认定——以A公司破产清算案为视角[J]. 法学, 2023, 11(6): 4953-4964. https://doi.org/10.12677/OJLS.2023.116709

参考文献

[1] 李永军. 虚假意思表示之法律行为刍议——对于《民法总则》第146条及第154条的讨论[J]. 中国政法大学学报, 2017(4): 41-48.
[2] 邬定伸. 非法吸收公众存款罪中民间借贷合同效力之探究[J]. 中国检察官, 2012(24): 22-24.
[3] 沈芳君. 构成非法吸收公众存款罪的民间借贷及其担保合同效力[J]. 人民司法, 2010(22): 80.
[4] 贾邦俊, 刘阳. 非法吸收公众存款罪下借款合同效力探析[J]. 西部法学评论, 2013(1): 44-49.
[5] 孙鹏. 论违反强制性规定行为之效力——兼析《中华人民共和国合同法》第52条第5项的理解与适用[J]. 法商研究, 2006, 23(5): 122-129.
[6] [日]松宫孝明. 刑法总论讲义[M]. 钱叶六, 译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2013: 81.
[7] [日]木村亀二. 違法性の統一性の理論[J]. 法学セミナー, 1969(156): 48.
[8] 吴国军诉陈晓富、王克祥及德清县中建房地产开发有限公司民间借贷、担保合同纠纷案[J]. 中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报, 2011(11): 45-48.
[9] 蒋太珂. 除斥期间的刑法评价[J]. 政法论坛, 2020, 38(3): 139-150.
[10] 吴光荣. 行政审批对合同效力的影响: 理论与实践[J]. 法学家, 2013(1): 98-114.
[11] 崔建远, 吴光荣. 中国法语境下的合同效力: 理论与实践[J]. 法律适用, 2012(7): 9-14.
[12] 汤文平. 批准(登记)生效合同、“申请义务”与“缔约过失”《合同法解释(二)》第8条评注[J]. 中外法学, 2011, 23(2): 337-356.
[13] 程滔, 封利强, 俞亮. 刑事被害人诉权研究[M]. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2015: 256.
[14] 邢会丽. 论刑民交叉案件中刑事退赔程序与民事执行程序的竞合[J]. 法律适用, 2019(21): 118-125.
[15] 徐澍. 企业破产与刑事追缴退赔交叉问题研究[J]. 东北农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2020, 18(3): 43-50.
[16] 彭新林. 非法集资犯罪司法疑难问题探讨[J]. 东南大学学报(哲学社会科版), 2020, 22(1): 81-92.
[17] 李晓强. 关于非法集资犯罪的几个问题[J]. 山东社会科学, 2012(2): 126-129.
[18] 时方. 非法集资犯罪中的被害人认定——兼论刑法对金融投机者的保护界限[J]. 政治与法律, 2017(11): 43-52.
[19] 马更新. 界限与协同:破产程序与刑事程序适用顺位辨析[J]. 北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2020, 18(1): 92-101.
[20] 龙天鸣, 吴杰. 论破产程序中刑事追赃优先的非必然性——以A公司破产重整案为视角[J]. 辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2021, 49(4): 103-115,
[21] 吴一波. 破产案件中刑民交叉问题研究[J]. 运城学院学报, 2018, 36(2): 64-67.
[22] 国浩律师(杭州)事务所. 论破产债权审核中刑民交叉问题的处理[EB/OL]. http://www.hzlawyer.net/news/detail.php?id=8051, 2013-07-30.