“帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪”明知推定之风险与对策

Proving knowledge by presumption in the crime of aiding criminal activities involving the information network:risk and countermeasures.

信息网络技术的发展在带来便利与快捷的同时,也为各种犯罪活动提供了支持。新型的犯罪形式借由信息网络技术的加持由传统的物理空间迁移到了网络空间上,其中许多犯罪行为无法按照传统刑法(共犯)理论进行解释。其经典犯罪模式可以被概括为“漠不关心”的分离射线型和“心照不宣”的链条型两种类型。网络帮助犯罪行为的犯罪主体之间的意思联络及行为共同性极弱,甚至为零,因此很难被评价为共同犯罪。基于此,《刑法修正案(九)》增设了“帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪”(以下简称“帮信罪”)。网络接入、资金结算等信息网络技术帮助行为,是典型的中性业务行为,天然地具有被犯罪分子利用以从事犯罪行为的风险。“帮信罪”中规定的“明知”要件将中性业务行为与犯罪行为区分开来。“明知”的范围应当是明确知道,而不包括可能知道与应当知道。推定是标志基础事实与假定事实之间法律关系的证据法范畴,从方法上说它是一种非论证性的推理,没有连续的推论环节。通过推定证明“明知”的方式具有扩大“明知”范围的风险,即无法排除可知与应知的情形,从而造成罪名的扩大适用,增加信息网络服务入罪的风险,阻碍网络科学技术与社会经济的发展。另外,推定的适用还为了满足司法实践的需求。在“帮信罪”中认定“明知”时,应当摒弃推定的适用,转而交由法官依据个案证据进行证据推论。

While the development of information network technology makes our life convenient and fast,it also sprouts various criminal activities.Facilitated by information network technology,the new forms of offences have migrated from traditional physical space to cyberspace.However,many such new offences cannot be explained by the traditional criminal law(accomplice)theory.The classic model of such new offences can be divided into two types:the deviated ray type which is featured by“indifference”and the chain type which is featured by“tacit approval”.Since the connection of the offender’s intent and the commonality of the offender’s act involved in such aiding offences in cyberspace are very weak or even zero,it is difficult to define such offenses as criminal conspiracy.As a result,in the ninth amendment to the criminal law,aiding criminal activities involving the information network(hereinafter referred to as the ACAIN offence)is defined as a new crime.The technical assistance via information network,such as network access and funds settlement,is a typical neutral business behavior.It could naturally be exposed to the risk of being used by criminals in criminal behaviors.The“knowledge”element required in the ACAIN offence distinguishes the neutral business behavior from the criminal behavior.The meaning of“knowledge”should be explicit knowledge,and the situation of“probably know”or“should have known”is not within the meaning.Presumption,which marks the legal relationship between basic facts and presumptive facts,is a concept within the category of evidence law.Methodically,it is a non-analytical inference with no sequential inference.Proving“knowledge”by presumption has the risk of expanding the scope of“knowledge”.It is to say,in such presumption,the situation of“probably know”and“should have known”could not be excluded.Such expansion will result in expanding the application of criminal charges,increasing the risk of criminalizing the information network services,and hindering the development of network science and technology and social economy.In addition,the application of presumption is also to meet the needs of judicial practice.In the process of determining“knowledge”in the ACAIN offence,presumption should not be applied.The judge should take over the evidential inference by making inference based on the evidence of the whole case.