论文部分内容阅读
本文以两支行行长案与俞林刚、俞圣家非法吸收公众存款案为例,对非法吸收公众存款担保行为进行了分析。在前一案件中,被告人的担保行为由于是在同一共同故意支配下,与正犯共同实施的符合本罪构成要件所规定的实行行为,故应被认定为非法吸收公众存款罪的共同正犯行为,具有刑事可罚性。而在后一案件中,被告人的担保行为因未侵害非法吸收公众存款罪之法益、与本罪正犯实行行为间缺乏必要联系及缺乏帮助故意等原因,仅应被认定为具有中立性的担保帮助行为且不具有刑事可罚性。
This article takes the case of two branch presidents and Yu Lingang and Yu Shengjia to illegally absorb public deposits as an example to analyze the illegal absorption of public deposit guarantees. In the previous case, the defendant’s guaranty act should be regarded as a common offender who illegally absorbed the public deposit as a result of the act carried out jointly with the principal criminal in line with the constitutional requirements of the crime under the same common intentional control , With criminal penalties. In the latter case, the defendant’s guarantee behavior should only be deemed as a neutrality guarantee because of the lack of necessary connection between the legal interests of not infringing on the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, and the actual guilty of crimes committed by the crime, Helping behavior without criminal penalties.