洗钱罪的故意与明知

Intention and Clear Knowledge of Money Laundering Crime

洗钱罪故意与明知的认定一直是理论界与实务界争议较大的问题。从语义分析、实施效果和犯罪防控的角度看,间接故意也应构成洗钱罪的故意类型。对于明知的性质,采"概括的七类上游犯罪所得及收益说"更为合理;对于明知的判断标准,应采"主客观相统一说",并根据洗钱罪的不同主体有所侧重;对于明知的程度,采"确定或可能说"更符合司法实践需求。关于明知的证明过程,运用严格证明和法律推定相结合的方法较为可取;至于有学者提出用举证责任转移,使被告人承担"不明知"的证明责任的观点,有违无罪推定原则,因而不可取。

Intention and clear knowledge of money laundering crime is disputed issue in theory and practice. Indirect intention shall be covered in the intention category of money laundering crime in perspectives of plain meaning, implemental effect and crime control. It is reasonable to take the nature of clear knowledge as the generalized seven upstream crimes and their gains. The criterion of clear knowledge shall combine the subjective theory and the objective theory. The certainty or possi- bility theory concerning the degree of clear knowledge is suitable to the needs of judicial practice. To prove the clear knowledge, methods combining strict proof and legal presumption are preferable. Some scholars argued that the responsibility of proof shall be shifted and that it is the duty for the defendant to prove that he has no clear knowledge. But this opinions contradict the principle of presumption of innocence and should be dismissed.