Argumentation on and Judicial Determination of the Attribute of the Purpose Crime of Money Laundering
Currently there is a great controversy in theory and judicial practice about whether the crime of money laundering belongs to the crime of purpose.On the surface,it is a dispute over the difference between the dualism and monism of the connotation and extension of the concept of the crime of purpose.But in essence,it is a dispute over the judgment of the in-fluence of the criminal purpose of"covering up and concealing"on the restrictive application of the crime of money laundering.The crime of money laundering is a direct-purpose crime,and in the direct purpose crime,the specific purpose is a component of the will factor in the inten-tion of the crime.In the incompletely two-conduct crime(crime of indirect intent),intent is only the understanding and hope of the first conduct,and the specific purpose is relative to the second conduct.Only by relying on the second conduct can the criminal purpose be achieved.However,there are similarities between direct purpose crime and incompletely two-conduct crime in the purpose attribute,that is,the function of determining the infringement on legal in-terests and subjective guilt.As a normative concept,money laundering is not equivalent to the transfer of criminal proceeds.The determination of the crime of money laundering not only re-quires the perpetrator to have the actual understanding and will for the transfer and conversion of specific upstream criminal proceeds,but more importantly,also to have the understanding and will to endanger the national financial order.If the perpetrator realizes that the money involved is a specific upstream criminal income and intentionally carries out the transfer and conversion,but his subjective purpose is not laundering,then the intentional will factor of the crime of mon-ey laundering cannot be completed and,because of the absence of a specific purpose,the per-petrator's act does not constitute the crime of money laundering.Therefore,conducts such as fund transfer and providing accounts not for the purpose of"covering up and concealing"do not have the legal interest infringement in the evaluation sense of legal norms,and should not be recognized as a money laundering crime.In judicial practice,there is confusion between the purpose of concealing upstream criminal activities and the purpose of"covering up and concea-ling"criminal gains.The objective behavior method is replaced by the subjective purpose of"covering up and concealing",which is in turn replaced by the objective laundering effect,which is mistakenly recognized as the purpose of"covering up and concealing".By analyzing the attributes of daily living expenses and transaction behavior,the normative identification of the perpetrator's subjective purpose of"covering up and concealing"can be used to correct the path of judicial restriction on money laundering crimes.
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
