《上访索财行为的定性研究--大学论文.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《上访索财行为的定性研究--大学论文.doc（45页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、学校代码 10530 学 号 201330040781 分 类 号 D924 密 级 硕 士 学 位 论 文上访索财行为的定性研究学 位 申 请 人 指 导 教 师 学 院 名 称 法学院 学 科 专 业 法律（法学） 研 究 方 向 中国刑事法 二零一六年六月二日The Qualitative Analysis of Rope Wealth Behavior for PetitionCandidate Lin Qi Supervisor Associate Prof. Fan Dengfeng College Faculty of Law Program Law Specialization
2、 Criminal Law Degree Master of Law University Xiangtan University Date June 2nd, 2016 摘要近年来，上访人“敲诈”政府的事件频频出现在我们的视野里，司法实践对此类行为的处理方式也不尽相同。上访索财行为是指上访人认为自己的权益受到侵害或者应得利益没有得到满足时，实施非正常上访行为向政府机关施压，要求该政府机关给予财物的行为。行为具有以下特征：行为主体的特定性、行为对象的特殊性、行为的有因性以及行为的违法性。目前对上访索财行为定性的学说主要有以下四种：“无罪说”、“寻衅滋事罪说”、“敲诈勒索罪说”以及“增设罪名说”
3、。“无罪说”认为上访索财行为是公民行使法定权利的行为，不构成犯罪，“寻衅滋事罪说”认为以实施非正常上访强迫政府机关给予财物属于强拿硬要公私财物的行为，构成寻衅滋事罪，“敲诈勒索罪说”认为上访人实施非正常上访行为向政府机关施压而索取财物的行为构成敲诈勒索罪，“增设罪名说”认为上访索财行为普遍具有胁迫性，现行刑法对其难以进行规制，应增设胁迫罪。上述学说从不同的角度论证了关于上访索财行为定性的观点，有其合理之处，但是或多或少存在一些不足。为了对上访索财行为进行准确定性，诸如敲诈勒索罪中“威胁”或“要挟”行为的界定、“非法占有目的”的界定以及寻衅滋事罪中“强拿硬要”行为的界定等理论问题需要澄清。上访索
4、财行为需分类定性，对于上访诉求有正当依据但是以实施非正常上访行为向政府施压索取数额较大的财物的，索财目的本身不具有非法性，但是不排除其索财的行为方式构成犯罪的可能。对于上访诉求没有正当依据的索财行为，一般可以确定上访人的索财目的具有非法性，当上访人实施的非正常上访索财行为会侵害社会公共秩序时，则属于强拿硬要行为，构成寻衅滋事罪，非正常上访行为可能同时符合刑法第二百九十三条第四项的规定，此时在定罪量刑时予以体现即可。当行为人以将要实施会对公共安全、政府机关及其工作人员的人身安全造成威胁的非正常上访行为以达到其索财目的时，构成敲诈勒索罪。如果上访索财行为同时满足寻衅滋事罪、敲诈勒索罪的成立条件，那
5、么依照想象竞合理论，从一重罪论处即可。其他的上访索财行为不构成与财产有关的犯罪，但是不排除行为人的非正常上访行为会构成其他犯罪的可能。关键词：上访；索财行为；威胁；强拿硬要AbstractIt is frequently seen that petitioners “blackmail” governments in recent years. In response to such acts, judicial practice handles them differently. Rope Wealth Behavior for petition refers to the act that
6、 petitioners, who think their legal rights are infringed or deserved to be met, demand a large amount of property given by governments. The characteristics of the behavior are the specific subject, special object, the reason of behavior and illegal behavior.Four principal points of view about Rope W
7、ealth Behavior for petition have been enumerated so far, including innocence, crime of Defiance and Affray, crime of Extortion and Additive Crime. Innocence holds the view that it is citizens legal right to demand property from governments and such act doesnt constitute a crime. The crime of Defianc
8、e and Affray regards such rope wealth behavior as an act to forcibly take or demand public and private property from government organs and should be committed to the crime of Defiance and Affray. Crime of Extortion asserts the act belongs to extortion because petitioners impose pressure on governmen
9、ts through non-normal petition to obtain financial belongings. Additive Crime proposes to add this behavior to crime of coercion for the act is coercive at some extent. The above qualitative explanations of Rope Wealth Behavior for petition are based on their own viewpoints, unavoidably leading to s
10、ome inadequacy. In order to define Rope Wealth Behavior for petition qualitatively, some theoretical issues should be clarified first, including the definition of threat or coercion in crime of Extortion, illegal possession and forcibly taking or demanding in the crime of Defiance and Affray. As for
11、 defining the Rope Wealth Behavior for petition, it should analyze to distinguish different levels of objective acts and subjective attempts. When it comes to a legitimate petition performed by a non-normal petition act to impose pressure on governments to obtain extra property beyond their rights,
12、the means of extorting property probably constitute a crime, although the attempt of demanding property itself is legal. As to extorting property without lawful basis, it can be considered that the attempt of extorting property is illegal. Furthermore, when the petitioners disturb social order and e
13、ndanger public safety to achieve the attempt of extorting property, the behavior belongs to forcibly taking or demanding thus constitutes to a crime of Defiance and Affray. Meanwhile, this non-normal petition act is consistent to Article 293 in Criminal Law of Peoples Republic of China. When the pet
14、itioners implement threat to government organs and their staffs personal security, the act can be sentenced as crime of Extortion. If the act of extorting property for petition meets the provisions in both crime of Extortion and crime of Defiance and Affray, a heavier punishment shall be taken according to an
