摘要
集资参与人与被害人之间具有区分的必要性与合理性,两者间并非等同或排斥关系,而是前者对后者的包容关系。被害人否定(谴责)论以偏概全,与事实不符。非专业投资者因信息不对称而被集资人控制,其集资参与行为属于缺乏风险识别能力的“羊群行为”,并非真正的自我决定,因此这类集资参与人应被认定为被害人。与之相反,信息优势方、具有风险识别和承受能力的职业投资人等参与集资的行为属于自陷风险,因此是不具有被害人属性的集资参与人。在涉案财产的处置程序中,被认定为被害人的集资参与人应居于第二序位参与被害人损失退赔,自陷风险的集资参与人应劣后分配处于第三序位的其他民事债务,该劣后序位的规定既具有投资者风险教育的刑事政策导向,亦符合维护国家金融安全和社会秩序稳定的宏观政治目标。
Differentiating victims from underground fund-raisers is both necessary and reasonable.The relationship between these two groups is neither equivalent nor exclusive,but the inclusive relationship between the former and the latter.The theory that holds the victims responsible for their decisions is biased and inconsistent with facts.Non-professional investors deficient in the capacity for risk identification are easily controlled by fund raisers who take advantage of information asymmetry and influenced by a herd mentality that makes them follow others blindly.Therefore,their participation in fund-raising is not a true self-determination,which makes it proper to call them victims.By contrast,the participation in underground fund-raising by such persons as investors with information superiority that contributes to their invulnerability to information asymmetry,professional investors capable of risk identifying and bearing is an act of self-trapping,and none of these persons falls into the victim category due to their dominance in the market.In the disposal of the property involved,victims deserve to be paid secondly for what has been unlawfully taken from them,and the self-trapping investors should be compensated thirdly for inferior distribution of“other civil liabilities”.This order of compensation embodies the criminal policy objective of investor risk education and is in conformity with the macro-political goal of safeguarding national financial security and stabilizing social order.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第1期58-71,共14页
Global Law Review
基金
作者主持的2019年度教育部人文社会科学青年基金项目“被害人视角下涉P2P集资类犯罪的刑法规制研究”(19YJC820009)的研究成果
