論民法典時代擔保財産被盜的受害主體與定罪數額——來自民法學人的思考

On the Victims and the Conviction Amount of the Stolen Collateral in the Age of the Civil Code ——Thoughts from a Scholar of Civil Law

擔保財産被盜的受害主體與定罪數額在《民法典》尚未通過的時期，無論在實務界還是理論界就均産生了巨大爭議。隨著民法典擔保制度大力吸收英美功能主義擔保觀念，使得財産權本身的譜系發生變化，此爭論只會愈演愈烈。于宏觀視角，我們須反思財産犯罪中既有的學術觀點，借鑒民法學的最新研究，結合實證統計一般民衆的法意識，進而構造出更爲動態、全面的民刑關係，即“損害流程場域區分”的適用關係；于微觀視角，我們還須嚴肅討論針對擔保財産之犯罪的保護法益，借鑒霍菲爾德權利術語和司法實務中涌現的珍貴觀點，望讓刑法保護之抽象法益始終保持對複雜多樣之具體民事權利的涵攝、包容力度，而非先驗地肯定或否定某種權利是刑法之保護法益，更要嘗試從獨立與從屬的辯證態度中建構“民法請求權”這一産生保護法益的本源。上述兩方面的反思和重構其實是殊途同歸，均是立足于尋找“受害主體”與“定罪數額”這兩個關鍵點，幫助揭示實務中不同裁判背後的機理和困惑疑難。刑法完整擔保物權的時機已經成熟，加强理論研究，進而在今後的刑事立法中，設立專門針對擔保財産犯罪的罪名，也是必要而迫切的，這有助于促進擔保制度的正常運轉，也助力優化營商環境。總之，在《民法典》時代，應將“積極回應型”刑法作爲未來持續的發展方向，而不是惰性地斷言“謙抑型”刑法時代也已經到來。

In the period before the Civil Code was passed, the victims of the stolen secured properties and the amount conviction caused huge debates in both practical and theoretical circles. As the guarantee system of the Civil Code vigorously absorbs the Anglo-American functional guarantee concepts, the pedigree of the property rights itself has changed, and these controversies will further intensify. On the one hand, we must reflect on the existing academic viewpoints in property crimes, draw on the latest research experience of civil law and combine the legal consciousness of the general public under empirical statistics to construct a more dynamic and comprehensive civil-criminal relationship, that is, the “field distinctions of damage process”. On the other hand, it is necessary to seriously discuss the legal interests of protection against crimes of secured properties, take lessons from Hohfeld’s rights terminology and the precious opinions emerging in judicial practices and hope that the abstract legal interests of criminal law protection will always remain relevant to the complexity and variety of the specific civil rights，rather than transcendentally affirming or denying that a certain right deserves the protection of the criminal law, but also try to construct the screening and evaluation of civil claims under criminal logic from the dialectical attitudes of independence and subordination, putting forward the deeper notion that the generation of a specific “civil law claim right” is a prerequisite for the existence of legal interests. The two above-mentioned aspects of reflection and reconstruction actually achieve the same goal by different routes, both of which are based on finding the two key points of “victim”and“conviction amount”, helping to reveal the mechanism and confusion behind different judgments in practice. It is also necessary and urgent to strengthen theoretical researches and in future criminal legislation to set up charges specifically for secured property crimes, which will help to promote the normal operation of the security system and optimize the commercial environment. In short, in the “Civil Code Era”, the “positively responsive” criminal law should be the future direction of sustainable development, rather than inertly asserting that the “modest and restrained” criminal law era has also arrived.