|
|
|
| The Attribution Dilemma and Judgement Logic for Identifying Causation in Economic Crimes |
| Zhu Qi-wei1,2 |
1. School of Law Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, 201306;
2. the Postdoctoral Station of East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, 200042 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The question of the identification of causation in economic crimes has long been overlooked. Although the conditional theory, theory of adequate causation, and objective imputation theory demonstrate limitations in this context, these theoretical shortcomings merely reflect superficial causes of causal confusion, which can be resolved by selectively applying different causation theories based on typological application. The root causes lie in three logical fallacies in judicial identification. First, the overextension of presumptive reasoning leads to circular inference, presuming both the existence of subjective elements and the establishment of causality. Second, arbitrary fragmentation and aggregation of causal chains leads to the conflation of modifying causes with associative causes. Third, there is an internal contradiction in asserting a distinction between normative evaluation and factual identification, while simultaneously allowing normative standards to selectively filter factual elements, thereby undermining the objective basis for causal attribution. The proper logic for identifying causation in economic crimes should be based on the unity of the legal order, and rigorously delimit perpetrating acts for criminal evaluation, and exclude those grounded in civil rights, those that merely superficially resemble civil entitlements without embodying criminal unlawfulness, and those that can be avoided through lawful alternatives by others. On this basis, a typological causation model should be constructed to distinguish modifying causes from associative ones, enabling precise evaluation of each act's causal contribution and preventing erroneous causal attribution.
|
|
Received: 20 March 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 邹兵建. 刑法因果关系的基本问题[J].南开学报(哲学社会科学版),2024,(5):163-180.
[2] 陈伟. 事实因果关系的归责功能[J].政治与法律,2024,(9):84-100.
[3] 黎宏. 刑法学总论[M].北京:法律出版社.2016.
[4] (日)山口厚.刑法总论[M].付立庆译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2018.53.
[5] 张明楷. 刑法学[M].北京:法律出版社.2021.225.
[6] 王钢. 洗钱罪的保护法益与实行行为[J].中国应用法学,2025,(1):124-139.
[7] 王新. 骗取贷款罪的规范构造与司法认定[J].环球法律评论,2025,(2):87-103.
[8] 叶金强.相当因果关系理论的展开[J].法学研究,2008,(1)34-51.
[9] 陈兴良. 从归因到归责:客观归责理论研究[J].法学研究,2006,(2):70-86.
[10] 张明楷. “风险社会”若干刑法理论问题反思[J].法商研究,2011,(5):83-94.
[11] 窦海阳. 论环境侵权因果关系中的“相当性”评价[J].清华法学,2024,(3):159-172.
[12] 付立庆. 论诈骗罪中的认识错误:含义、认定与具体限定[J].法学家,2025,(3):146-159.
[13] 黎宏. 刑法因果关系论考察[J].清华法学,2022,(3):112-130.
[14] 潘庸鲁. 利用未公开信息交易罪的判断规则与证据标准[J].人民司法,2021,(22):62-66.
[15] 陆玔.精准判断趋同交易时间点,打击“老鼠仓”犯罪[N].检察日报,2021-02-23(007).
[16] Rothenfußer C.Kausalität und Nachteil[M].München:C.H.Beck,2003.59.
[17] 熊建英. 警务大数据应用视角下的相关关系与因果关系研究[J].江西警察学院学报,2020,(2):41-46.
[18] 邹玉祥,任涛.行政犯违法判断方法探究——规范保护目的理论之提倡[J].学术交流,2023,(3):71-83.
[19] 王振硕. 行政犯违法性判断的方案建构——以违法相对论为立场的分析[J].行政法学研究,2025,(2):178-192.
[20] 孙运梁. 事实判断与规范归责:因果关系与客观归责的功能界分[J].法学论坛,2013,(1):112-121.
[21] 李会彬. 刑法因果关系中事实判断与规范评价的区分[J].政治与法律,2022,(4):107-124.
[22] 贾宝祥. 不积极进行康复治疗不构成被害人过错[J].人民司法,2015,(10):30-31.
[23] 李川. 结果归责与危险替代:介入型因果关系的教义重塑——以医疗介入类伤害案因果判断为例[J].法学,2021,(10):64-79.
[24] 夏伟. 刑法规制经济犯罪的逻辑与边界[J].中国刑事法杂志,2025,(2):54-71.
[25] 朱奇伟. 同时履行抗辩权阻却刑事不法的逻辑梳理与制度调适[J].法学论坛,2024,(5):150-160.
[26] 汪明亮. 经济犯罪的主流犯罪倾向及其司法应对[J].中国应用法学,2024,(4):49-58.
[27] 马春晓. 法秩序统一性原理与行政犯的不法判断[J].华东政法大学学报,2022,(2):33-45.
[28] 吴冬兴. 法秩序统一性导向下部门法冲突的司法调适[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2025,(1):46-58.
[29] 杨志琼. 权利外观责任与诈骗犯罪——对二维码案、租车骗保案、冒领存款案的刑民解读[J].政法论坛,2017,(6):33-45.
[30] 杨志国. 论刑法的规范评价——以定罪为中心的研究[D].上海:华东政法大学刑事司法学院博士学位论文,2012.8.
[31] 马荣春,顾宝娟.论刑法因果关系的三组属性[J].青少年犯罪问题,2024,(5):63-78.
[32] 谭佳怡,孙唯和.违规开设场外虚盘配资平台的行为定性[N].人民法院报,2025-01-16(006).
[33] 姚建龙. 中国刑法学自主知识体系的内涵阐释与建构路径[J].中国法学,2025,(2):65-85. |
|
|
|
2025, Vol. 42 
