作者：王佩芬
出版社：上海社会科学院出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
发票犯罪立法研究试读：
摘要
发票犯罪是我国现行刑法中一个错综复杂的罪群。关于发票犯罪长期存在理论探讨上的分歧与司法适用中的疑难，难以通过刑法解释的途径得以解决，再加上二十年来发票犯罪持续高发的严峻现实，需要我们转换思路，从刑事立法的角度，对发票犯罪进行梳理分析。基于这样的考虑，我们在回顾总结相关研究的基础上，以发票犯罪在刑法理论上的分歧与司法适用中的疑难问题为出发点，采用系统论法学研究方法，对我国刑法中的发票犯罪立法展开全方位的体系性研究，以期为相关理论研究和司法实践提供新的思考。
发票作为一种常见的商品购销凭证，是交易活动发生的书面证明，是会计核算、财务报销的原始依据，也是企业进行税务核算的凭据，影响到应纳税额的计算。在我国1979年《刑法》中，没有设置专门的发票犯罪罪名，对于针对发票的犯罪，主要是通过“伪造票证罪”以惩治伪造发票的行为，通过“投机倒把罪”以惩治非法倒卖发票的行为。
1994年我国开始进行新税制改革，实行“以票控税”的增值税发票抵扣制度，增值税发票成为一般纳税人抵扣当期进项税额的唯一依据。而正是这种特殊的抵扣功能，让一张“薄薄的发票”比人民币还值钱，也刺激着不法分子为牟取暴利铤而走险，我国发票犯罪呈空前泛滥高发之势。
为了有效惩治和严厉打击泛滥猖獗的发票犯罪，1995年10月30日全国人大常委会通过一个单行刑法，专门针对发票犯罪增设了包括虚开、伪造、非法买卖、盗窃、诈骗发票以及发票渎职等11个罪名。1997年《刑法》全面修订时，将上述罪名稍作修正后，全面纳入现行刑法，并设置于刑法分则第三章“破坏社会主义市场经济秩序罪”第六节“危害税收征收管理罪”之下。2011年《刑法修正案（八）》又对发票犯罪两增两删，即删除了第205条“虚开增值税专用发票罪”与第206条“伪造增值税专用发票罪”的死刑适用，增设了第205条之一“虚开发票罪”与第210条之一“持有伪造的发票罪”。至此，现行刑法中针对发票犯罪共设置有13个罪名。
尽管在立法上发票犯罪罪名设置细密，并重刑惩治，尽管二十年来我国对于发票犯罪的严厉打击也毫未松懈，但时至今日，发票犯罪依然是一个持续高发、难以遏制的突出问题。并且，自发票犯罪罪名设置以来，在司法适用中还产生了一系列包括罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪、一罪与数罪、罪重与罪轻等疑难问题。例如司法实务中出现的“对开、环开”、“如实代开”的行为是否构成虚开增值税专用发票罪？利用虚开的发票进行偷逃税款或骗取出口退税，或进行贪污、侵占、走私、骗取贷款等犯罪行为，应构成此罪还是彼罪、一罪还是数罪？利用虚开发票的手段偷逃税款的行为与利用其他手段偷逃税款的行为相比较，在量刑上前者要远重于后者，其刑罚设置是否合理？上述一系列问题，既造成理论上的严重分歧，也造成现实中的司法不一。尤其是围绕着虚开增值税专用发票罪所产生的矛盾与疑难最多，观点对立，难以调和。当前从法律解释学的角度进行的诸多论证，都难以解决上述理论分歧与司法疑难。在此情形下，就需要转换思路，从刑事立法的层面进行根源性的探讨分析。
本书对于发票犯罪立法问题的探讨，主要包括以下几个部分：
绪论部分，对选题的缘起与研究的意义、研究的历史与现状、研究的思路与方法进行了概述。界定了本文是针对狭义上的发票犯罪，即刑法中规定的“以发票为犯罪对象的罪名”进行的研究。在研究方法上，尝试将系统论方法首次运用于刑事立法研究，注重刑法理论与司法实践相结合。
第一部分，是对发票犯罪刑事立法基础概念与基本关系的梳理，是本文进行研究论证的基础。因其内容庞杂，故分为二章进行论述。
第一章发票犯罪概说。通过对发票的概念、功能、分类以及我国的发票管理、发票犯罪概况进行梳理，笔者提出：（1）发票的功能与发票犯罪密切相关。发票的主要功能包括证明功能与税控功能，发票犯罪的本质就是不法分子利用发票的功能牟取非法利益。发票的功能决定了发票犯罪的形式；其利用发票的功能不同，构成的发票犯罪类型也就不同；其利用发票功能的数量，决定了发票犯罪的罪数。（2）刑法中对于发票的分类，不符合逻辑上的划分规则。（3）从我国二十年来发票管理的变迁与发票犯罪的阶段性特点可以看出，发票管理规范与发票犯罪变化高度相关；发票管理的漏洞与薄弱环节是导致发票犯罪泛滥的源头，加强和完善发票管理，进一步推动现代科学技术在发票管理中的运用，才是遏制发票违法犯罪最源头、最有力、最根本的手段。
第二章发票犯罪刑事立法的现状与理论，对我国发票犯罪的立法实践与刑事立法理论发展进行概括综述。通过对发票犯罪的立法沿革、立法特征、发票犯罪与税收犯罪的关系分析，以及与域外发票犯罪的立法比较，揭示我国发票犯罪在理论与司法中存在的整体性问题。另外，通过对刑事立法思想与刑事立法原则的梳理与整合，笔者将刑事立法的基本原则归纳为三大原则，即“必要性原则”、“合理性原则”、“科学性原则”。对于经济犯罪刑事立法的特殊原则，提出两个专有原则：“前瞻性原则”、“刑罚轻缓化原则”。这将作为本书进行刑事立法考察的理论基础。
第二部分包括第三章至第六章，是对发票犯罪中各罪，即为虚开发票犯罪立法，伪造发票犯罪立法，非法出售、非法购买与非法取得发票犯罪立法，发票持有犯罪与发票渎职犯罪立法，分类别进行整体性分析。
第三章虚开发票犯罪立法探讨。围绕虚开增值税专用发票罪与虚开发票罪在司法中的疑难问题以及理论上的争议，以刑事立法基本原则为依据进行立法考察，发现对虚开罪名的设置存在立法上的重复与观念上的误区，因此笔者建议删除第205条与205条之一，既不会造成惩治上的空白与漏洞，也从根源上解决了虚开罪名的理论分歧与适用疑难。
第四章伪造发票犯罪立法研究。围绕擅自制造增值税专用发票是否构成犯罪、伪造是否包括变造等疑难问题，探讨了伪造发票犯罪是否有必要按发票类型与发票真伪分设罪名的问题，并提出了应当并设一罪的立法建议。
第五章非法出售、非法购买以及非法取得发票犯罪的立法探析。主要探讨了多层次、多标准区分发票类别而单设罪名带来的弊端，非法购买增值税专用发票以外的发票是否构成犯罪，以及刑法第210条盗窃、诈骗发票属于法律拟制还是注意规定等问题，并提出了相应的立法建议。
第六章发票持有犯罪与发票渎职犯罪的立法评析。着重讨论了持有型犯罪立法的法理依据，提出了立法上设置持有型犯罪的三个界限标准，并提出应谨慎增设持有型犯罪；从发票持有犯罪与渎职犯罪的立法变迁，提出应加强经济犯罪刑事立法的前瞻性研究。
第三部分即第七章，是运用系统论方法对发票犯罪立法作全方位的体系性考察。分为三个层次进行，即将发票犯罪罪群作为一个整体，分别在刑法体系下、犯罪学体系下、行政税收管理等体系下进行立法考察，同时对发票犯罪内部要素即罪与罪之间、罪与刑之间以及内部罪名与外部相关罪名之间的关系，以及对单个罪名内部的体系性进行考察，从而更全面了解法律体系下的发票犯罪立法全貌。
最后是结语部分，是对全文的总结。针对发票犯罪立法中存在的问题，提出相应的立法完善建议，并由此提出对刑事立法理论的思考与补充。
从立法上来看，我国现行刑法中对于发票犯罪的规定，罪名设置细致严密、刑罚设置重于同性质类型的犯罪。其主要问题表现为：
第一，刑法上对于发票的分类不符合逻辑上的划分规则。针对“发票”一个犯罪对象，刑法中分为“增值税专用发票”、“用于骗取出口退税发票”、“用于抵扣税款发票”、“普通发票”四个类型进行罪名设置，而这四个类型的划分并非是在同一个层次上适用同一个标准进行的。这一分类，有违逻辑上的“划分标准必须同一”、“划分必须逐层次进行”、“划分所得子项外延之和必须等于母项外延之和”、“划分所得子项之间必须互不相容”的划分规则。从功能上来说，“增值税专用发票”既可以用于抵扣税款，也可以用于骗取出口退税，也可以作为普通发票使用；“增值税专用发票”和“用于抵扣税款的其他发票”（即四小票）都属于“增值税发票”，虽然抵扣税率不同，但其抵扣税款的功能相同；尤其是“用于骗取出口退税发票”这一概念分类极不科学，因为增值税发票可以用于骗取增值税出口退税，普通发票也可以用于骗取消费税出口退税，发票是否可以用于出口退税，与出口的行为有关，与发票的票样形式无关。可见，我国现行刑法上对发票的分类，存在“多标准划分”、“越级划分”、“多出子项”、“子项相容”等逻辑错误。
第二，发票犯罪罪名体系叠床架屋，繁琐庞杂，不符合罪名设置简明概括的立法要求。发票犯罪罪名的设置，是在发票分类的基础上，又以区分发票的真伪为基础，针对发票的各个环节分别设置相应的罪名，造成现行刑法中的发票犯罪多达13个罪名，且多为选择性罪名。具体包括：在开具环节设置了“虚开增值税专用发票罪、用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”、“虚开发票罪”；在制造环节和出售环节设置了“伪造、出售伪造的增值税专用发票罪”、“非法出售增值税专用发票罪”、“非法制造、出售非法制造的用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”、“非法出售用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”、“非法制造、出售非法制造发票罪”、“非法出售发票罪”；在非法取得环节设置了“非法购买增值税专用发票罪、购买伪造的增值税专用发票罪”、“盗窃罪”、“诈骗罪”；在持有环节设置了“持有伪造的发票罪”；在发售和认证环节设置有“徇私舞弊发售发票、抵扣税款、出口退税罪”。针对同一个犯罪对象而设置诸多的罪名，缺乏立法上的类型化，占用了稀缺的刑事立法资源，人为地造成了罪名适用与理解上的分歧。
第三，将虚开环节增设罪名，是对虚开行为的性质认定不清，在立法上存在诸多误区，人为地制造了理论上的种种分歧与司法适用中的重重疑难，有违罪刑法定的基本原则。
1995年单行刑法对于发票犯罪的细化，是在将1979年《刑法》中的发票惩治罪名进行分解的基础上，又增设了“虚开增值税专用发票、用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”。但这一罪名的增设，在司法适用中产生了罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪、一罪与数罪的认定疑难，由此也引发了理论界对于“虚开增值税专用发票罪”的性质探讨，出现了“结果犯说”、“目的犯说”、“行为犯说”、“抽象危险犯说”与“具体危险犯说”的观点分歧；也造成了司法解释标准不一与司法结果不一的现象。
发票的开具作为发票实现其功能的必经环节，虚开发票是发票犯罪最为常见的形式，将虚开发票的行为单独入罪，必然会造成虚开犯罪与其他发票犯罪相关罪名的竞合或牵连。利用刑事立法的基本原则进行考察，可以发现，虚开增值税专用发票在罪名设置和罪状描述方面都存在问题，不符合刑事立法的科学性原则；在刑罚设置方面偏重，不符合经济犯罪的刑罚轻缓化原则；即使通过对各种分歧性观点进行构成要件补足，即无论是将“虚开增值税专用发票罪”设置为“目的犯”、“结果犯”、“行为犯”还是“危险犯”，都不能全面解决虚开增值税专用发票罪存在竞合、牵连或量刑不均的问题，不符合刑事立法的合理性原则。由此可以发现，“虚开增值税专用发票罪”已不是通过完善立法技术就可以解决的问题，而是需要再退后一步，考察将虚开入罪是否符合刑事立法的必要性原则。
梳理虚开增值税专用发票罪的立法背景与立法沿革，考察虚开增值税专用发票罪的立法基础与立法理念，可以发现，将虚开发票的行为增设入罪，在立法上存在以下几个误区：第一，将打击犯罪的必要性、行为入罪的必要性与增设罪名的必要性相混淆；第二，将罪名设置细密求全与罪名设置科学合理相混淆；第三，将设置重刑与打击效果的关系相混淆；第四，将刑事预防、行政预防与制度预防相混淆；第五，补充增设“虚开发票罪”，存在只顾局部的逻辑补足而罔顾整体协调的误区。可见，虚开罪名的设置，是虚开发票行为的重复性入罪，人为制造了虚妄的冲突，不符合刑事立法的必要性原则。
第四，立法上存在罪状描述不清晰，立法逻辑不严密，立法用语不规范等问题，不符合罪刑法定原则。在罪状描述方面，以“虚开”的认定为例，尽管在《刑法》第205条第4四款规定有“虚开是指为他人虚开、为自己虚开、让他人为自己虚开、介绍他人虚开”四种情形，但这只是虚开的一种分类，而对于什么是虚开、如何认定虚开，仍然存在认识上的分歧。如果在立法上采用空白罪状的形式，将“虚开增值税专用发票罪”的罪状描述为：“违反国家发票管理制度的规定，虚假开具增值税发票……”，那么，对于虚开情形的认定，就是以我国发票管理制度、增值税专用发票管理规定中的具体要求作为判断依据，就不会产生对“虚开”认定上的分歧。
在立法逻辑上，尽管发票犯罪罪名设置细密，但欲密反疏，过于追求罪名的繁细，反而容易产生漏洞。例如，1979年《刑法》规定的“伪造票证罪”，就涵盖了伪造发票犯罪的所有情形，并不会产生“伪造是否包括擅自制造”、“伪造是否包括变造”、“伪造、变造、非法制造、擅自制造的区别”等诸多分歧；如果现行刑法设置“非法购买发票罪”一罪，就不会出现“非法购买用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票是否构成犯罪”、“非法购买普通发票是否构成犯罪”的争议。另外，刑法上增设了持有伪造的发票罪，就存在购买伪造的普通发票不构成犯罪但持有这些发票却构成犯罪的情形，存在逻辑上的矛盾。
高质量的立法，要求立法用语应当严谨、周密，对基本概念、基本问题的表述保持一贯。反观发票犯罪的立法用语，就存在概念外延忽大忽小、前后不一的问题。以“发票”的概念为例，《刑法》第205条之一“虚开发票罪”、第209条第2款“非法制造、出售非法制造的发票罪”及第4款“非法出售发票罪”3个罪名的“发票”外延，是指增值税之外的不具有抵扣功能的普通发票，但《刑法》第210条之一“持有伪造的发票罪”，其发票的概念则包括增值税发票与普通发票在内的所有发票。再如，对于“伪造”、“变造”、“非法制造”、“擅自制造”等词语的使用，都存在认识上的分歧，甚至出现了以刑法用语的相对性为由而进行任意解释的现象。
第五，发票犯罪刑罚设置整体偏重，不符合罪刑相适应原则与经济犯罪刑罚轻缓化原则。从发票犯罪各罪名之间的法定刑比较可以看出，刑法上针对不同类型发票的同种行为，对于增值税专用发票的刑罚规定最重，用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票次之，仅普通发票仍与其他票证犯罪的量刑基本一致。但是，从行为性质上来说，利用增值税专用发票偷逃税款或进行其他犯罪行为，与普通发票并无区别。这个问题就像“棉花和铁哪个重”的问题一样，铁并不因为其密度大于棉花而可以得出铁比棉花重的结论，一斤棉花和一斤铁在重量上显然是相等的。同理，增值税专用发票并不因为其抵扣税率最高，就能得出其社会危害性必然大于其他发票的结论。相反，利用普通发票偷逃企业所得税，还可能以25％的税率影响税收，显然其税率还要高于增值税专用发票。
尽管《刑法修正案（八）》取消了伪造增值税专用发票和虚开增值税专用发票罪的死刑适用，但整体上法定刑设置仍然偏重。尤其是目前在理论上已认识到“税款申报”其实质是一种“所有权的让渡”而非侵犯“国家的财产所有权”，刑法上对于“逃税罪”的刑罚设置也通过《刑法修正案（七）》已轻缓化的情形下，如果对利用虚开的增值税专用发票偷逃税款的行为仍然适用重刑，显然与经济犯罪刑罚轻缓化的立法原则背道而驰。
第六，现有发票犯罪的安排在刑法体系上的不相协调。发票犯罪无论在罪名设置与刑罚设置方面，还是在刑法体系中所处的位置，都显得极为突兀。与刑法中其他犯罪对象大多为概括抽象的类型化立法方式相比，发票犯罪立法上的繁杂细碎显然与刑法体系不相协调。另外，置于“税收征收管理犯罪”之下的发票犯罪，除虚开发票犯罪在立法初期主要表现为涉税犯罪之外，其他罪名并不与税收犯罪直接相关。伪造发票属于伪造票证类的犯罪，持有伪造的发票属于持有类犯罪，非法买卖发票属于危害管理秩序的犯罪，盗窃诈骗发票属于侵犯财产类犯罪，而虚开发票罪名的设置显然存在立法上的重复入罪，属于应当取消的罪名。
发票犯罪在罪名上的繁复与刑罚上的重刑设置，也导致了罪与罪之间、罪与刑之间的诸多牵连竞合、轻重倒置等不协调问题。发票犯罪在刑法体系中呈现出一种“枝大于干”的不协调现象。这种情形的出现，其根本原因在于1997年《刑法》修正时，在“大改还是小改”这一立法问题上，采用了“尽量保持原有罪名的小改”模式，将肇始于单行刑法的发票犯罪罪名全面纳入现行刑法，从而造成在刑法体系中的不相协调。
综上分析，笔者提出以下立法建议：（1）删除刑法第205条与第205条之一，取消“虚开增值税专用发票、用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”与“虚开发票罪”；（2）将“伪造增值税专用发票罪”、“非法制造用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”、“非法制造发票罪”3个罪名合并为“伪造、变造发票罪”；（3）将“出售伪造的增值税专用发票罪”、“非法出售增值税专用发票罪”、“出售非法制造用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”、“非法出售用于骗取出口退税、抵扣税款发票罪”、“出售非法制造发票罪”、“非法出售发票罪”6个罪名合并为“非法出售发票罪”一罪；（4）将“非法购买增值税专用发票、购买伪造的增值税专用发票罪”修改为“非法购买发票罪”，以弥补现行刑法中未将非法购买除增值税专用发票以外的其他发票的行为未入罪的立法漏洞；（5）在将发票犯罪进行罪名简并的同时，建议还原刑罚的轻缓化设置。
发票犯罪作为我国社会转型时期刑事立法的一个缩影，历经单行刑法、刑法典的全面修正，以及刑法修正案的立法模式，其立法发展过程，可以作为研究我国刑事立法变迁的典型样本。在社会转型时期，面对经济体制、社会结构、价值观念的深刻变革，社会矛盾与纠纷的积累，以及大量新型违法犯罪行为的产生，如何克服传统的法律万能、重刑主义与刑罚威吓等旧观念在“潜意识”中的影响，克服以刑事制裁替代行政管理的惯性思维，在刑事立法中保持科学理性，仍面临巨大的挑战与压力。
最后，通过对发票犯罪的立法考察，由此一隅之见反观全局，可以上窥刑事立法原则在理论探讨上与实际操作中的各种问题。迄今为止，刑法理论上仍缺乏对刑事立法基本原则的归纳与阐述，缺乏统一的通说，刑事立法的基本原则在立法实践中远未受到应有的重视。书中以“虚开增值税专用发票罪”为例，尝试将归纳的刑事立法基本原则适用于对罪名的立法考察，以揭示刑事立法原则在立法实践中的次序性运用。最后，对于如何将刑事立法基本原则运用于增设新罪与删除旧罪的立法活动，也提出了一些新的思考。希望能对刑事立法理论探讨有所贡献，对刑事立法实践有所裨益。
A Study on the Legislation of Invoice Related Crimes
Abstract
Invoice related crimes constitute a complicated crime group in the Criminal Law of China. About invoice related crimes, there have been disagreements in theoretical discussion and difficulties in judicial application for quite a long time, which are unsolvable by criminal law explanation. Those problems and the serious situation of the continuous high rate of invoice related crimes, require us to shift approach to analyze invoice related crimes from the perspective of criminal legislation. Based on those considerations, reviewing and summarizing the related researches, taking the disagreements in theoretical discussion and the difficulties in judicial application as start point, using methods such as systematic method, value-analytical method, et cetera, we attempt to launch a comprehensive systematical research in the voice related crimes in China, hoping to provide some new thoughts on the related theoretical researches and judicial practices.
As a usual commercial voucher, invoice has two major functions: proof function and tax-control function. It is the functions of voice that are used criminals to commit crimes to make unlawful profit. Different functions used constitute different charges; the number of functions used decides the number of charges. The 1979 edition of Criminal Law didn't set a special criminal charge for invoice related illegal acts, instead, punished the invoice forgery with the ‘crime of voucher forgery’, and punished the illegal resale of invoice with the ‘crime of illegal speculation and profiteering’.
As to setting a special name of Invoice Related Crimes through criminal legislation, the back ground was the 1994 reform of taxation. Back then vale-added-taxation was implemented to control taxation with invoice, as the only basis for the amount of input tax, value added tax invoice could deduct the payable tax. It is this special deduction function that made ‘thin invoice’ more valued than money and instigate lawbreakers to become reckless to seek unlawful exorbitant profits, resulted in a unprecedented high rate of invoice related crimes.
In order to punish and crack down the rampant invoice related crimes, police, taxation department and judicial department joined up and launched several special punishing and fixing activities, on the other side, the NPC Standing Committee passed a special criminal law, aiming at invoice related crimes, added 11 criminal charges including falsely making out special invoices, forging invoice, illegally selling special invoices, stealing special invoices, fraudulently obtaining special invoices, providing a new legislation basis for severer-heavier cracking down and punishing invoice related crimes. When Criminal Law was revised comprehensively in 1997, above mentioned criminal charges were slightly revised and included in current Criminal Law, putting under Chapter 3 ‘Crimes of Disrupting the Order of the Socialist Market Economy’, Section 6 ‘Crimes of Jeopardizing Administration of Tax Collection’. Criminal Law Amendment 8 (2011) had two additions and two deletions concerning invoice related crimes: deleted the death penalty application in Article 205 ‘Crime of Falsely Making Out Special Invoices for Value-added tax’ and Article 206 ‘Crime of Forging Special Invoices for Value-added tax’, added ‘Crime of Falsely Making Out Invoices’ in Article 205 and ‘Crime of Holding Forged Invoices’ in Article 201. Till then, there are 13 invoice related charges in current Criminal Law.
Even though we have so many invoice related crimes in legislation and severely crack down on invoice related crimes in judicial application for 20 years, till today, invoice related crimes are nevertheless on a continuous high rate and constitute an outstanding problem. To make the situation even worse, since the invoice related crimes were legislated, there have emerged in judicial application many difficult problems such as ‘is it crime or not’, ‘does it constitute this crime or that’, ‘does it constitute one crime or several crime’, and so on. For instance, do acts such as making out invoice mutually or circularly constitute crime of falsely making out special invoice for value-added-tax? Do acts such as evading tax, defrauding export tax rebate, embezzling, misappropriating, smuggling, or defrauding to get loan with falsely made out invoice constitute crime of falsely making out special invoice for value-added-tax or crime of tax evasion or other related crimes? Do they constitute one crime or several crimes? Compared with others, acts of evading tax by means of falsely making out invoice are punished so much more severely in judicial practice, does it mean they do much more harm to the society? Is it reasonable set penalties like this? Those problems mentioned above formed not only serious disagreement in theoretical discussion but also inconsistency in judicial practice. Especially revolving around the crime of falsely making out invoice for value-added-tax there emerged so many contradictions and difficulties, hard to get compromise between opposing opinions. Approaches from the angle of law explanation cannot solve those problems. In this situation, we have to switch approaches and analyze radically on the level of criminal legislation.
To carry out research from the perspective of criminal legislation, we need the guidance of criminal legislative principle. After summarizing the criminal legislative thoughts and principles, we sum up three basic principles: principle of necessity, principle of reasonability, principle of science. As for the special principles for economic criminal legislation, we propose two special principles: principle of prospective, principle of penalty lightening. Principles mentioned above will be the theoretical basis for our observation in criminal legislation.
From the angle of legislation, the stipulations about invoice related crimes in the current Criminal Law have meticulous crime setting and the penalties are heavier than crimes of the same nature. The major problems are as follows:
I. The classification of invoices in current Criminal Law runs against the basic logical rules for classification. Aiming at invoice which is but one object of crime, current Criminal Law make divisions of four categories which are ‘special invoice for value-added-tax’, ‘invoice used to defraud a tax refund for exports’, ‘invoice used to offset tax money’ and ‘common invoice’, although those four categories are not divided on the same conceptual level with the same standard. This classification does not comply with the logic rules such as ‘division must by the same standard’, ‘divisions must on the same level’, ‘the sum extension of all partial items must equate the extension of the whole item’, and ‘there should be no overlap between the extensions of partial items’. Functionally speaking, special invoice for value-added-tax can also be used as common invoice; both special invoice for value-added-tax and other invoices used to offset tax money (the so called ‘four small voucher’) belong to the category of invoice for value-added-tax, even though the taxation rate differs but the offset functions are the same; specially problematic is the concept of invoice used to defraud a tax refund for exports, since special invoice for value-added-tax can be used to fraud a tax refund for exports, common invoice can also be use for this purpose, there is no invoice which can not be use to defraud a tax refund for exports, this conceptual category is not scientific at all. So we can see, the classification of invoices in current Criminal Law does not comply with the basic logic rules and makes logic mistakes such as ‘classification by multiple standards’, ‘classification across levels’, ‘redundancy of partial items’, ‘overlaps between partial items’.
II. Besides the classification of invoice mentioned above, current Criminal Law also bases on the differentiation of authentic and false invoices, sets criminal charges for every related link of the process, results in a falsely recursive situation and a over complicated huge system of invoice related crimes, does not comply with the legislative requirement of conciseness in setting criminal charges.
Invoice related crimes in current Criminal Law include 13 crimes, and many of them are selectable criminal charges as following: crime of falsely making out special invoice for value-added-tax and crime of defrauding a tax refund for export or offsetting tax money are set for the link of making out invoice; crimes of forging special invoices for value-added-tax or selling such invoices, crimes of unlawfully purchasing special invoices for value-added tax, crimes of making without authorization invoices used to defraud tax refund for export or to offset tax money, crimes of making without authorization invoices or selling such invoices and crime of unlawfully selling invoices are set for the link of making and selling link; crimes of unlawfully purchasing special invoice for value-added tax or purchasing forged special invoices for value-added tax are set for the link of unlawfully obtaining; crime of possessing forged invoices is set for the link of possessing; crimes of malpractices for personal gain in selling invoice or refunding tax or offsetting tax money for the link of selling and inspecting. Aiming at one object of crime, current Criminal Law set too many crimes from different angle, lack of generalization in legislation, occupying the rare source of criminal legislation, and lead to man-induced complexity in judicial application an research.
III. To set a certain crime for the link of making out invoice is the result of a not clear understanding of the nature of falsely making out invoices, and the result of many misunderstanding in legislation, leads to quite a lot disagreements in theoretical discussion and difficulties in judicial application, runs against the principle of legality.
The refinement of legislation on invoice related crimes in the separate Criminal Law of 1995, based on a splitting of invoice related crimes regulated in the Criminal Law of 1997, added the crime of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax and the crimes of using such invoices to defraud a tax refund for exports or to offset tax money for the link of making out invoices. The addition of this criminal charge, led to some difficulties in making clear the situations of crimes or not, this charge or that, one charge or several, and therefore initiated the debating on the nature of the charge of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax, represented disagreement in many theories such as the theory of consequential offence, the theory of Absichtsdelikte, the theory of offence of act, the theory of offence of abstract danger and the theory of potential danger; and caused different standard in judicial explanation and different result of judicial application.
We have reason to say, the link of making out invoices is the must-be-through link of invoice to fulfil its functions, to make the act of falsely making out invoices for value-added tax as a separate criminal charge will inevitably result in the implicated offence or joinder of offence between the charge of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax and other charge of invoice related offences. Checking out with the three major principles for criminal legislation, we can find out the problem in the criminal charge setting of crime of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax; the penalty is too heavy, which does not comply the principle of lightening penalties for economic criminal charges. Making up the required elements proposed by those theories mentioned above, we can find out that no matter we treat the crime of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax as Absichtsdelikte, consequential offence, offence of act, or offence of danger, the problems of the implicated offence or joinder of offence between the charge of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax and other charge of invoice related offences cannot be solved comprehensively. Therefore we can find out that the crime of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax is not a problem which is solvable by legislative techniques, we need to retreat to get a vantage point and check out whether making the falsely making invoices a criminal charge comply with the principle of necessity.
Through summarizing the legislative back ground and history of the criminal charge of falsely making out special invoices for value-added tax, reviewing the legislative basis and principles, we can find out that the setting of the criminal charge of falsely making out invoices does not comply with the legislative principle of necessity, and there are several misunderstanding about legislation: firstly, the necessity of cracking down on crimes and the necessity of charging were mistaken as the necessity of addition of criminal charge; secondly, fractionizing in the setting of criminal charge is mistaken as scientific requirement; thirdly, aggravating the penalty of is mistaken as the effectiveness of the cracking down; fourthly, the prevention by Criminal Law, by administration are confused with the prevention with system; fifthly, the addition of crime of falsely making out invoices was the result of the misunderstanding which focus on part but overlook the whole. To sum up, the addition of crime of falsely making out invoices is a repeatedly
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]