律师中性业务行为可罚性与否之界分

On Whether the Lawyer’s Neutral Behavior Is Punishable or Not

中性业务行为因其中立性而具有区别于帮助犯的本质特征。律师中性业务行为可罚性与否之界分是刑法理论和实务界的双重难题。全面可罚性说质疑中性业务行为的独立地位。限制可罚性说中的主观说放弃了对中性业务行为本身客观危害性有无的考察,客观说放弃了对行为人本身是否具有故意的主观心态的考察,二者皆不可取;折中说兼顾主客观两方面因素的考察,符合主客观相统一的基本原则,也能实现与我国现行刑法规定和刑法理论的有效衔接。运用折中说判断律师中性业务行为是否具有可罚性,客观方面要判断是否超出社会相当性或职业相当性的范畴而符合客观危害性的标准,包括是否超出业务行为的最大射程,是否具备法益侵害的紧迫性,是否明显违反相关业务规范;主观方面要判断是否具有确定的故意,包括对犯罪人犯罪意图或者犯罪行为和法益侵害结果的认识因素,以及希望或者放任结果发生的意志因素;从而实现主观判断和客观判断、事实判断和价值判断的统一。

The neutral business behavior is different from the accomplice because of its neutrality.It is a double problem in the field of criminal law theory and practice on whether the lawyer’s neutral behavior is punishable or not. The theory of comprehensive punishability questions the independent status of the neutral business behavior. The subjective theory in the theory of limited punishability abandons the investigation of the objective harmfulness of the neutral business behavior itself, and the objective theory abandons the investigation of whether the actor himself has the intentional subjective state of mind. The compromise theory, which takes both subjective and objective factors into account, is in line with the basic principle of the unity of subjectivity and objectivity, and it can also effectively link up with the current criminal law provisions and criminal law theory in China. Using the compromise theory, objectively,we need to judge whether the behavior is beyond the scope of social or professional equivalence and in line with the standard of objective harmfulness, including whether it is beyond the maximum range of business behavior, whether it has the urgency and significance of legal interest infringement, and whether it obviously violates the relevant business norms. The subjective aspect is to judge whether the definite intention exists or not, including the cognitive factors of the criminal’s criminal intention and the result of the infringement of legal interest, and the will factors of the hope or the indulgence of the result of the infringement of legal interest, so as to realize the unity of subjective judgment and objective judgment, fact judgment and value judgment.