摘要
不同于正规的期货交易,虚拟期货交易平台案件不以标的的未来交付为目的,行为人实际上与交易参与人形成对赌关系,交易资金闭环流动,交易结果与真实市场不存在任何关联。无非法占有目的的虚拟期货交易案件可分为“二元期权”模式和价格差模式两类。对于“二元期权”模式案件,司法上多定性为开设赌场罪;对于价格差模式案件,尽管司法上基本形成了以非法经营罪定性的惯性,但这一定性并不能准确包摄此类案件的行为本质。期货交易与赌博的本质区别在于,期货交易与真实的标的资产具有相关性,期货交易具有风险规避和价格发现功能,而赌博除了制造风险供人投机外,不具有经济功能。无非法占有目的的虚拟期货交易平台案件的定性,应回归其行为本质。应当以是否存在操纵交易涨跌行为作为核心标准,拒绝出金等作为辅助标准判断虚拟期货交易平台案件是否存在非法占有目的。
Different from formal futures trading,a virtual futures trading platform does not aim at the future delivery of the subject matter.The trader actually forms a quasi-gambling relationship with trading participants,the transaction funds flow in a closed loop,and there is no connection between transaction results and the real market.Virtual futures trading without the purpose of illegal possession can be divided into two types,namely the"binary option"model and the price difference model.For the"binary option"model,the Supreme People's Court Guidance Case No.146 adopted the substantive interpretation approach and characterized it as the crime of operating casinos.The"binary option"involved in the guidance case does not have real underlying assets,nor does it have any function of risk management or price discovery.This is the fundamental reason why it is classified as the crime of operating casinos.As for the price difference model,although the judiciary has basically developed the practice of convicting the perpetrator for the crime of illegal business operation,this practice cannot accurately encompass the nature of the behaviors in such cases.Firstly,compared with the legislative and judicial experience of the highly similar"bucket shop"cases abroad,it is more accurate to classify them as cases of the crime of operating casinos.Secondly,the analysis of the nature of the behaviors in the cases reveals that,on the one hand,there is a high possibility that no real underlying assets exist in these cases.On the other hand,all transactions in these cases are closed in the virtual platform and have no relationship with the real futures market.Therefore,such transactions do not have the essence of futures,but purely create risks as a tool for people to speculate.Characterizing such behavior as the crime of illegal business operation does not conform to the nature of such behavior.Thirdly,based on the principle that collective legal interests should be able to be reduced to individual legal interests,the illegal business o
出处
《环球法律评论》
北大核心
2023年第1期40-56,共17页
Global Law Review
基金
2019年度国家社会科学基金一般项目“网信技术创新背景下新型侵财犯罪刑法适用困境的实证考察与破解路径研究”(19BFX099)的研究成果。
