索赔还是勒索:民刑分界的模糊地带——如何区别消费纠纷中的“维权过度”与敲诈勒索

Claim or Blackmail:the Ambiguous Boundary Between Civil Dispute and Criminal Case

在消费者与经营者由于产品质量问题发生纠纷时,消费者以遭受损害为由,以通过媒体曝光或者以其他方式向社会公开相要挟,向商家提出天价索赔的现象屡有发生。司法实践中,有些司法机关将此类行为定性为"维权过度",不作为犯罪处理;也有的司法机关将其作为敲诈勒索罪追究刑事责任。理论界也有不同观点的争鸣,无罪论者认为对"维权过度"行为定罪违背了刑法的谦抑性,损害了消费者维权的积极性;有罪论者则认为,消费者非理性维权,侵犯了经营者的合法财产权,破坏了法律秩序,应当作为犯罪处理。考察域外立法及司法对此类行为的认定,对维权过度型敲诈勒索行为进行分类甄别,区别不同情形做出处理,以期切实保障消费者和经营者的合法权益,实现刑事司法的法律效果与社会效果的统一。

Inside consumption disputes, it frequently occurred that consumers coerce manufacturers into paying enormous compensation by threatening to go public with the scandal on products＇ defect. How to distinguish between ＂abuse of rights＂ and racketeering？ The ambiguity puzzles judicial practitioners. Consumers＇ over-claim as racketeering endangers manufacturers＇ property rights as well as the whole economical environment. Nevertheless, the characteristics of modesty and restraint lie within the criminal law, in addition to the encouragement and fostering of consumers＇ claim over flawed products, result in judicial authorities＇ prudence towards these racketeering cases. In other words, consumers＇ racketeering cases shall be dealt with under the criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy, distinguished with prudence and balanced in penalty, in order to safeguard the legal rights of both the consumers and manufacturers.