共识与分歧:洗钱罪删除“明知”后主观要件的理解

Consensus and Divergence: Understanding of Subjective Elements after the Deletion of "Knowing" in the Crime of Money Laundering

《中华人民共和国刑法修正案(十一)》删除“明知”后,对洗钱罪主观要件的理解已然形成一定共识:洗钱罪的认定仍然需要主观要件,且主观要件仍然是故意,但是主观故意的证明标准降低。然而,围绕洗钱罪的主观要件是否还需要“明知”、明知的认识内容是“行为对象”还是“行为性质”、明知的认识程度是“必然知道”还是“可能知道”等问题则产生了理解分歧,且分歧集中于自洗钱与他洗钱。为此,有必要以类型化的认定标准纾解洗钱罪主观要件理解分歧,最终明确:自洗钱与他洗钱主观要件均需要“明知”;自洗钱主观明知的认识内容为“行为对象”,他洗钱为“行为性质”;自洗钱主观明知的认识程度为“必然知道”,他洗钱为“可能知道”。旨在以洗钱罪的精准理解,降低司法适用难度,切实提升犯罪惩治实效。

After the deletion of "knowing" in the Criminal Law Amendment(11), a certain consensus has been formed on the understanding of the subjective elements of the crime of money laundering: the determination of the crime of money laundering still requires subjective elements, and the subjective elements are still intentional, but the standard of proof of subjective intention is lowered. However, there are divergent understandings surrounding the issues of whether the subjective element of money laundering still requires "knowing," whether the content of knowing refers to the "object of the act" or the "nature of the act," and whether the degree of knowing is "certain knowledge" or "possible knowledge." These divergences are primarily concentrated on self-money laundering and laundering for others. Therefore,it is necessary to adopt typed identification standards to resolve the divergent understandings of the subjective elements of money laundering, and ultimately clarify that both self-money laundering and laundering for others require "knowing." The content of knowing for self-money laundering refers to the "object of the act," while for laundering for others, it refers to the "nature of the act." The degree of knowing for self-money laundering is "certain knowledge," while for laundering for others, it is "possible knowledge." The aim is to achieve a precise understanding of money laundering, reduce the difficulty of judicial application, and effectively enhance the effectiveness of punishing crimes.