审核人员看清楚，本文章内名字均为引用著作的作者名字
According to the auditors, all the names in this article are those of the author of the quoted book.
非法虚拟货币交易平台的刑法规制探讨
Criminalization of the illicit virtual money exchange platform
作者：柯苇
Author: Corinth
炒币的暴富神话让市场投机气氛浓厚，价格波动剧烈，投资者盲目跟风热炒。2017年9月4号，央行等七部委发布了《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》，定性代币发行融资涉嫌从事非法金融活动，严重扰乱经济金融秩序。自禁令出台以来，一些虚拟货币交易平台为躲避监管打击，通过“出海”方式，将服务器设置在境外、实质面向境内群众提供交易服务，继续从事相关非法活动。一些不法分子受巨大市场和利润驱使，趁着监管洼地效仿搭建虚拟货币资金盘“收割韭菜”，诱导玩家参与高风险期货交易，洗劫投资者资金。该类平台游离于监管体系之外，客户资金、大盘涨跌、配资杠杆皆操控在管理者手中，在运营过程中频频突破现行刑法底线，乱象丛生，行为具有涉及面广、资金量巨大、专业技术性强的特点，在扰乱了市场、金融秩序的同时，也给社会秩序造成了极大隐患。
Since the ban, a number of virtual money trading platforms have been operating outside the country by “going to the sea” to provide trading services to people in the country and continuing to engage in related illegal activities. A number of outlaws have been driven by huge markets and profits, and have taken advantage of the regulatory slump to build a virtual money bank to “get vegetables”, to induce players to engage in high-risk trading, and to loot investors' funds.
此类平台诱骗的对象大多是缺乏虚拟货币交易知识和辨识能力、对欺诈手法不知情的“小白群体”，即使后期产生怀疑，平台往往以正常投资风险为由进行推脱，删除或篡改其在互联网中操作记录，使电子化的犯罪证据难以寻觅，对案件的取证、认定上都造成了不同程度上的障碍和困难。
Most of these platforms have been tricked by “small white groups” that lack knowledge of virtual currency transactions and the ability to identify, and are not aware of fraudulent schemes. Even at a later stage, the platforms tend to argue against normal investment risks, remove or tamper with their operating records on the Internet, making electronicized criminal evidence difficult to locate, and creating varying degrees of obstacles and difficulties in obtaining evidence and identifying cases.
除了证据认定困难外，围绕此类案件的罪名适用和处理问题产生了一些理论争议和实务困惑。对此，本文拟以非法虚拟货币交易平台典型案例为分析样本，从对赌状态、进出金控制、诱导操作、平台操控等方面出发，对行为的危险性质及不法程度进行识别，在此基础上对罪名适用、交易欺诈行为定性、共犯与数额认定等争议焦点问题进行探讨。
In addition to evidentiary difficulties, there is some theoretical controversy and practical confusion about the application and handling of the charges in such cases. In this regard, it is proposed to use the typical case of an illegal virtual currency trading platform as an analytical sample to identify the dangerous nature of the act and the extent of its unlawfulness, from the point of view of the state of bet, access control, inducement operations, platform manipulation, etc., on the basis of which the issue of the application of the offence, the characterization of the transaction fraud, complicity and the determination of the amount of the dispute is addressed.
一是对赌状态：正常的平台所有人和管理者应该是中立的，其盈利来源于佣金、返利、配资等。非法虚拟货币交易平台虚构己方系外盘代理的身份，实际上是自制“内部盘”，没有接入到真实的市场。平台不仅是交易场所的提供者，还与客户进行对赌交易，从整个的架构设计来看，平台利润点来自于高昂的手续费和客户在平台上的“投资失败”。对赌过程中，平台可通过后台数据随时了解客户的资金额、持仓量、交易明细、出入金等状况，并成立“风控部门”监视客户的盈利情况。
One is the state of bets: the normal platform owner and manager should be neutral, with profits derived from commissions, repatriations, matching, and so on. The illegal virtual money trading platform, which creates the identity of its own external agent, is in fact a home-grown “in-house” without access to a real market. The platform is not only a provider of the trading place, but also engages in bet transactions with customers, whose profit points are derived from high transaction costs and customer “investment failures” on the platform as a whole. In the case of bets, the platform, through backstage data, is able to keep track of the customer’s financial position, holdings, trade details, access money, etc., and to set up a “wind control department” to monitor the client’s profitability.
另外，平台是用虚拟数据与客户的真金白银对赌。对于客户而言，己方的资金数据是通过入金实现的；对于平台而言，己方的资金数据是系统内的数字，可以在后台随意增减，即平台虽然会预备一些虚拟货币用于客户提币，但与平台交易量之间完全不对等。客户的损失是真实资金，客户的获利在真实出金前只是数据。平台通过虚拟资金参与交易，从不仅可以形成盘面上交投两旺的景象，更可获得倾覆式的对赌收益。
In addition, the platform uses virtual data to bet on the real money of its clients. For clients, home-grown financial data is obtained through a cash entry; for the platform, home-grown financial data is a system figure that can be added to or subtracted from backstage, i.e., the platform, while preparing some virtual currency for its customers to raise their money, is completely different from the volume of transactions with the platform. The customer’s loss is real money, and the client’s profit is only data before the actual cash comes out.
二是诱导入金和出金控制：此类平台会通过包装平台、行情、承诺盈利、虚构盈利案例等欺骗方式诱导投资人入场，受害人的资金最终转入平台设立人的账户，客户出金时候平台会进行限制，可分为拖延出金、拒绝出金二个层面。拖延出金抓住事主急于挽回本金的心理，怂恿长期投资，并以其他“投资客”正在赚钱来诱骗事主持续追加投资。拒绝出金如伪造网站被黑客攻击的假象，以门头沟事件等行业先例为借口，拒绝支付客户出金。
The second is enticement and cash control: such platforms induce investors to enter through fraudulent means such as packaging platforms, gestures, promises of profit, fictional profit cases, etc. The funds of the victims are eventually transferred to the accounts of the platform’s founders, and the platform is limited when the clients pay, which can be divided into delaying payments and refusing to pay the gold. Delays in capturing the funds are an urgent attempt to recover the principal, encouraging long-term investment, and enticing other “investors” to make further investments.
三是提供反向建议、诱导客户频繁、重仓、高杠杆：平台或根据提前掌握的K线图给给客户发布反向建议，或根据对行情的预判给客户发布反向建议。在虚拟货币炒币平台中，由于需保持K线实时与国际大盘一致走向（避免客户怀疑），反向操作建立在对行情判断基础上，同时对客户的交易操作进行“执行力监督”，如客户不配合则反复诱导、劝说，配合限制登录等措施，若反向操作建议成功的让客户亏损，则声称行情会有逆转，诱导客户扛单；如客户却盈利则称行情要变化，见好就收、落袋为安为由，劝说客户卖出。频繁操作建议目的是增加客户手续费，损耗客户入金，此外，重仓、高杠杆也可有效降低客户的防风险能力。
Third is the provision of counter-advisory advice, frequent inducements to clients, and high leverage: the platform issues counter-advices to customers either on the basis of pre-positioned K-line maps, or on the basis of pre-judgement of the situation. In the virtual currency platform, because of the need to maintain the K-line in real time in line with the big international plate (to avoid client suspicion), the reverse action is based on “execution oversight” of the client's transactional operations, and, if the client fails to cooperate, repeatedly induces, counsels, coordinates access restrictions, and, if the counter-operation proposal succeeds in making the client lose, claims to be reversed and induces the client to pay the bill; if the client is profitable, the customer is persuaded to sell it on the grounds that he or she is willing to accept or drop the bag. The purpose of the frequent operational recommendations is to increase the client's fees and to deflate the client's earnings. In addition, heavy warehousing and high leverage can effectively reduce the client's ability to protect against risk.
四是控制、影响K线图涨跌：平台内的K线涨跌决定着投资者的收益。平台行情并没有连接国际大盘，而是模拟参照国际比特币价格走势或者将复制的多个交易所数据拼接而成。虚拟货币交易平台会谨慎选择控制K线图走势，因与实时国际市场行情不符容易被客户察觉，且同一时间多名客户同时做多做空，操纵后果难以评估，且引发大量客诉。故平台选择必要时通过“插针”来完成控制，即设置机器人虚拟账户，对该账户进行虚拟注资，用虚拟资金控制交易行情，并在交易平台中设置资金放大比例数十或数百倍于受害人的“主力账户”，通过放大后的资金优势操作、控制市场行情。
The virtual money-trading platform will carefully choose to control the movement of the K-line, which is easy for customers to detect because of incompatibility with real-time international markets and because multiple customers do more than work simultaneously at the same time, the consequences of manipulation are difficult to assess and cause a large number of clients to complain. The platform therefore chooses to complete control by “pinning” when necessary, i.e. by creating a robotic virtual account, making a virtual investment in the account, using virtual funds to control transactional transactions and setting up a “master account” in a trading platform with a financial magnification ratio of tens or hundreds of times that of the victims.
五是控制交易软件和后台账户：通过对交易软件和后台账户的控制，可影响客户正常下单、撤单（止损）和平仓等交易操作，篡改盈利客户的下单情况和交易数额；任意选择点位将受害人平台内余额强行平、爆、穿仓，后台增加点差和手续费等。另外，由于此类平台自身技术力量所限，交易软件使用会出现卡顿、迟延、不稳定等情况，影响客户的盈亏。
The fifth is the control of transactional software and back-office accounts: control over transactional software and back-office accounts can affect transactions such as regular billings, withdrawals (stopping) and peace warehouse operations of customers, tampering with the listings and transaction amounts of profit-making clients; arbitrary selection of points to level the balance in the victim's platform, bursting, piercing the warehouse, adding points and fees to the back-office, etc. Moreover, due to the technical capabilities of such platforms themselves, the use of transaction software can result in Caden, delays, instability, etc., affecting the client's profits and losses.
一、非法经营罪
I. CRIME OF ILLICIT BUSINESS
第一种观点认为，非法经营罪在客观方面首先应该是一种经营行为，经营行为之所以非法是因为侵犯了国家限制买卖物品和经营许可证的市场管理制度。假借投资交易达到非法占有他人钱财的行为明显不同于市场经营活动，未产生扰乱正常虚拟货币市场秩序的影响。上述观点实质上是认为只有规范的符合市场经济的经营行为才是非法经营中的“经营”，即认为禁止经营领域不应当存在非法经营行为。
The first view is that the offence of illegal business should be, first and foremost, an act of business, which is illegal because it violates the State’s market management system, which restricts the purchase and sale of goods and operating licences. The conduct of fraudulent investment transactions to the illegal taking of money from others is clearly different from market activities and does not have the effect of disrupting the normal order of the virtual money market.
第二种观点认为：《关于防范代币发行融资风险的公告》）法律位阶较低，不足以成为入刑的前提条件，但此类非法虚拟货币交易平台开展的业务包括买空卖空的虚拟标准化合约交易行为，因此可按照非法期货交易来规制。但相应监管机构出具的证明函往往都是证明涉案的交易平台是否具有期货交易的资质，并不出具涉案平台所进行的交易是否属于“类期货”的模式，对此是否可以由司法人员依据自己的判断和经验来认定也产生一定的困惑。
The second view is that the low legal rank of the bulletin on protection against the risk of financing the issuance of money in exchange is not sufficient as a precondition for criminalization, but that the operations carried out by such illegal virtual money-trading platforms include virtual standardized contract transactions that buy empty sales, and can therefore be regulated by illegal futures transactions. However, the certification letters issued by the respective regulatory bodies often prove that the trading platforms involved are qualified for futures transactions, and do not present a model of whether the transactions carried out by the platforms involved are “types of futures”, which also creates some confusion as to whether they can be determined by the judiciary on the basis of its own judgement and experience.
笔者认为，立法的重点并非在于对经营行为的严格解释和限定，“经营”二字应为中性，并非规范的符合市场经济的经营行为才为经营。经营行为的非法，包括国家限制、禁止经营或者特许经营的行为[1]，刑法第225条规定的“市场秩序”内涵的理解应当包括市场准入秩序（即市场主体和客体的进入或退出应符合有关规定）[2]。对于国家禁止买卖的产品，如果行为人却作为商品经营，谋取利益，显然不仅扰乱了市场准入秩序，而且扰乱了市场管理秩序。如一起非法买卖人类头颅骨的案件法院最终以非法经营罪定罪量刑[3]，而买卖头骨不可能所谓存在正常的“市场”。
In the view of the author, the focus of the legislation is not on strict interpretation and qualification of the conduct of business, and the word “operate” should be neutral and not on the basis of a regulated market economy. The illegality of the operation, including State restrictions, prohibitions or franchises,[1], and the meaning of “market order” under article 225 of the Penal Code should be understood to include market access order (i.e. entry or withdrawal of the subject and the object of the market should be in accordance with the relevant requirements).
根据我国关于期货交易和期货交易所的法律法规，我国对期货交易实行的是许可证制度，未经国务院期货监督管理机构批准，任何单位或个人不得以任何形式组织期货交易及其相关活动。判断行为是否属于期货交易行为应当从期货交易的本质特征上加以把握，在具体案件中，行政主管部门没有义务，也不会对所有涉案的期货经营行为出具书面的定性意见，如果认定行政机关的意见是必要证据，那么不利于司法活动的顺利进行，在充分调查了解的基础上，司法机关有权直接依照法律、法规确定案件行为的性质。[4]2013年中国证监会办公厅在《关于做好商品现货市场非法期货交易活动认定有关工作的通知》中首次提出非法期货交易认定标准以及程序，即采用功能要件与形式要件相结合的方式对非法期货进行认定。目的要件以标准化合约为交易对象，允许交易者以对冲平仓方式结束交易，而不需交割实物以转移标的物的所有权；形式要件以交易对象为标准化合约以及交易方式为集中交易[5]。非法虚拟货币交易平台未经过有关部门批准，私自搭建的合约交易和杠杆交易模块（实质系从事标准化期货合约），对外也宣称属于期货性质，侵犯了期货市场管理制度和管理秩序，构成非法经营罪。
In accordance with our laws and regulations on futures transactions and futures exchanges, futures transactions are subject to a licensing system in which no unit or individual may organize futures transactions or their related activities in any form without the approval of the State Council Futures Supervisory Authority. The determination of whether or not the conduct is a futures transaction should be made in accordance with the nature of the futures transaction. In specific cases, the administrative authorities are not obliged to issue a written characterization opinion on all futures operations involved. If it is determined that the opinion of the executive authority is the necessary evidence, the judicial authorities have the right, on the basis of full investigation and knowledge, to determine the nature of the conduct of the case directly and in accordance with the law and regulations.[4] In 2013, the CSRC's Office, in the Circular on the Identification of Illegal Futures Transactions in the Commodity Market, introduced for the first time the criteria and procedures for the identification of illegal futures transactions in the form of a combination of functional elements with formal elements. The purpose element is intended to be the object of a standardized contract, allowing traders to close the transaction without order the ownership of the subject matter.
此类平台在构成非法经营罪的同时，如果被认定构成诈骗罪，有观点认为系只实施了一个危害行为，同时触犯数个性质不同的犯罪构成，系想象竞合犯的状态。笔者认为，行为人在非法经营的不法状态上叠加实施了诈骗行为，目的行为是诈骗，手段行为是非法经营，触犯数罪名之间没有明显的主从之分，构成实质竞合中的牵连犯状态。
Such platforms, while constituting the offence of illegal business, are considered to have committed only one pernicious act and several offences of a different nature, and are in the position of imaginary accomplices. In my view, the perpetrator has committed fraud in a wrongful state of illegal business, the purpose of which is to commit fraud, the means of doing so is to operate illegally, and there is no clear hierarchy between the offences, which constitutes a state of complicity in a substantial competition.
对牵连犯处理规则一般是择一重罪处断，但在理论上也存在着从一重重处断、数罪并罚的争议。学术上认为，如果承认牵连犯的存在，处理规则只能是择一重处，如果认为牵连犯可以数罪并罚，就无法与实质数罪区分开来，牵连犯的概念就没有意义[6]；司法实践中则认为对牵连犯，刑法分则有特别规定的，应当适用特别规定定罪处罚；刑法分则没有规定的，按照择一重罪从重处罚的原则处理。[7]
The rules for dealing with those implicated are generally based on a felony, but theoretically there is also a controversy over the existence of multiple convictions and penalties. The academic opinion is that, if the existence of the implicated person is recognized, the rules can only be dealt with on a one-size-fits-all basis, that there can be no distinction between the number of crimes and the number of substantive offences, and that the concept of the implicated person has no meaning[6]; in judicial practice, it is considered that there is a special provision for those involved, and that a special provision for the punishment of the convicted person should apply; and that the criminal law sub-rule is not provided for and is dealt with on the basis of the principle of aggravating a felony.[7]
二、不宜认定开设赌场罪
II. It is not appropriate to criminalize the opening of casinos
第一种观点：平台诱骗他人参与对赌，构成开设赌场罪。如最高人民法院 1991 年对四川省高院所作出的《关于设置圈套诱骗他人参与赌博获取钱财的案件应如何定罪问题的电话答复》提到：诱骗他人参赌，纠集多人进行赌博，属于刑法规定的聚众赌博。上诉答复请示提到的情形是:诱骗群众参加猜红蓝赌局，在红蓝上做手脚，参赌者有输无赢，设赌者包赢不输。
For example, the 1991 telephone response of the Supreme People’s Court to the Sichuan High Court on the criminalization of the use of a trap to induce others to participate in gambling to gain money states: “Induces others to gamble, gathers more people to gamble, and is a group gamble under criminal law.” The response to the appeal refers to situations in which people are lured to participate in the Red and Blue Gaming Board, work on red and blue, gamblers win or lose, and gamblers win or lose.
第二种观点：平台诱骗他人参与对赌，却存在偷看底牌（监视盈利）、诱导投注（诱导客户操作）、不仅仅以抽头获利（根据客户亏损获利）的行为，不适宜定性为开设赌场罪。
The second view: a platform that induces others to take part in gambling is not appropriate for the offence of opening a casino by looking at the bottom card (surveillance for profit), by luring an offer (enticeing a client to operate), and not simply by extracting a profit (based on a loss for a customer).
笔者认为，虽然此类非法交易平台与客户处于对赌状态，但不宜将对赌状态视为聚众赌博。首先，绝大部分入场投资人均被诱骗参与，认为公司不参与交易，并无参赌故意；其次，如果以赌博罪认定，会造成被害人财产损失将作为非法赌资没收，不符合公平原则。
First, the vast majority of entering investors are lured into participating, believing that the company is not involved in the transaction and is not willing to take part in it; second, it would not be fair to assume that it would result in the loss of property of the victim as illegal gambling.
三、诈骗罪
III. FINANCE CRIME
第一种观点是平台系封闭、对赌，则反向建议、频繁操作引导此类行为已经足够达到操控赌局的地步，导致客户极大概率亏损，构成诈骗罪。
The first view is that the platform is closed and bets bets, and the reverse advice, frequent manipulation and direction of such behaviour is sufficient to manipulate the game, resulting in a high probability loss for the client and constituting a fraud offence.
第二种观点是即便平台系封闭、对赌、反向建议等行为，也需要达到控制（行情、交易软件）程度才能构成诈骗罪。
The second view is that even if the platform is closed, bets, counter-advices, etc., it needs to be brought to the level of control (trading, trading software) in order to constitute a fraud offence.
《最高人民法院公报》2007年第8期黄艺、袁小军等诈骗案中提到，被告人以打假牌的方式控制赌局的输赢结果，赢取他人钱财，构成诈骗罪；《人民法院案例选?总第51辑》2005年第1辑郭怀立等人诈骗案中提到，被告人以诈赌为手段致使被害人有输无赢，骗取被害人财物，构成诈骗罪。
The Supreme People's Court's Bulletin, No. 8 of 2007, in the case of frauds such as yellow arts and Yuan Xiaojun, referred to the fact that the accused's use of false cards to control the outcome of a gambling game and win other people's money constitutes fraud; and the People's Court Case Selection? General Series 51, No. 1 of 2005, in the case of fraud by Guo Huaili et al., referred to the accused's use of fraudulent gambling as a means of making the victim lose or lose and defrauding the victim's property, constituting fraud.
按照陈兴良教授的观点：“设置圈套诈骗人参赌的行为，属于赌博行为。在这种情况下，设赌者往往在赌博中采取一定的作弊手段，因而也具有某种欺诈性。但如果设置骗局，虽以赌博的形式但实际上进行诈骗，则超出了赌博的范畴，属于赌博诈骗行为，应以诈骗罪论处。[8]
According to Professor Chen Xinglian: “Playing fraud is gambling. In such cases, gamblers often engage in a certain amount of cheating in gambling, and are therefore somewhat fraudulent.
赌博的胜负一类是完全取决于偶然因素，一点人为的因素都没有；另外一类是对于赌博结果可以在一定程度上进行控制，即赌者为提高自己的赢的概率，赌技水平慢慢逐渐提升，对赌局的输赢产生一定的影响，但是只要指赌局结果的输赢取决于对于双方当事人来说都是不确定的偶然因素，仍然还属于赌博罪的范畴。
One type of gambling success depends entirely on accident factors, none of which are man-made; the other is that gambling outcomes can be controlled to some extent, i.e. the gambler's ability to increase his/her chances of winning gradually increases and has some impact on the game's win/win, but still falls within the scope of gambling offences, as long as the outcome of the game depends on an element of chance that is uncertain to both parties.
而非法虚拟货币交易平台往往通过一系列不平等的交易规则和不法手段，使得进入平台的客户处于极大概率亏损的状态（1）增加客户风险、限制客户赢率（如反向建议、频繁操作、重仓引导、限制高杠杆、拖延出金等）（2）降低己方风险、提高己方赢率（如虚拟资金对赌等、监视客户账户）（3）直接操控结果（如K线图操控、交易软件操控、拒绝出金等），直接造成客户亏损。
Illicit virtual money trading platforms, in turn, often through a range of unequal trading rules and unlawful means, place clients entering the platform in a state of high probability loss (1) by increasing client risk, limiting client success rates (e.g. reverse advice, frequent operation, re-sleeping, limiting leverage, delaying gold, etc.) (2) by reducing risk to their own parties, increasing their own win-win rates (e.g. virtual bets, surveillance of customer accounts, etc.) (3) by directly controlling the result (e.g., K-line manipulation, trade software manipulation, denial of gold, etc.), resulting in a direct loss to the client.
对上述三种情形，最后一种构成控制赌局争议较小。前两类情形叠加投资的高风险性，可以导致极大概率的客户亏损，但是否达到刑法意义上的“控制”程度，则存在一定的争论空间，究竟降低对方多少的赢率，提高自己多少的胜率算作“控制”赌局，也是一个无法量化的事实。另一方面，即便认同属于控制赌局，也不宜通过此路径论证为诈骗罪，因为认定诈骗还必须符合诈骗罪的各项犯罪构成要件。
The last of these three situations is less controversial about controlling the casino. The combination of the high risk of investment in the first two types of situations can lead to a high probability of loss for the client, but whether it reaches the level of “control” in the sense of criminal law, there is some room for debate as to whether it is impossible to quantify how much of the other party's winnings are reduced and how much of the other party's winnings are counted as a “control” gambler.
我国刑法中对诈骗类犯罪是在“虚构事实、隐瞒真相”的定型基础上做出的判断，本文将从该罪构成要件的欺诈行为、因果关系入手，对行为与被害人财产损失的链条关系进行梳理。因此类诈骗行为与通常诈骗手法有所区别，对诈骗罪各构成要件的理解需要更加的深入；此类诈骗行为往往以看似合法运营的公司集团化协作运营，涉案人员的主观故意更加错综复杂，需要细致分析。
In our criminal law, fraud-related offences are judged on the basis of a “fiction of facts, concealment of the truth”, starting with the fraud, causality of the elements of the crime and the chain of conduct with the loss of property of the victim. Because of the distinction between such fraud and the usual fraudulent methods, the constituent elements of the crime of fraud need to be understood in greater depth; such frauds are often operated in collaboration with groups of companies that appear to operate legally, and the subjective intent of the persons involved is more complex and requires careful analysis.
对平台具有非法占有目的的争议较小，因平台运营的盈利来源就是客户亏损，运行的最终目的就是为了让客户亏损，员工分工明确，目的明显，即在避免客户怀疑的前提下最大限度地造成客损、手续费及仓息，并将之据为己有。
There is less controversy about the platform's illegal purpose of possession, since the profit source of the platform's operation is the loss to the client, and the ultimate purpose of the operation is to make the client lose, with a clear division of labour, with the clear aim of maximizing the loss of customers, fees and interest and taking advantage of it to its own advantage, while avoiding the suspicion of the client.
平台的运作建立在众多的谎言与欺骗之上，在众多欺骗行为中，哪些可以被认定为诈骗罪中的“虚构事实，隐瞒真相”；如何认定诈骗行为与损害后果之间的因果关系等方面是争议较大的问题，也是涉案人员的重点辩护、辩解方向。
The platform operates on the basis of numerous lies and deceptions. Among the numerous frauds, which can be characterized as “false facts, concealment of the truth” in the crime of fraud, the question of how to determine the causal link between the fraud and the consequences of the damage is a more controversial one, as is the focus of the defence and the direction of defence of the persons involved.
从民事欺诈和刑事诈骗区分的角度来看，涉案平台的行为已经超出了民事欺诈的界限。举例来说，无论是“以假充真、以次充好、以不合格产品冒充合格产品”的生产、销售伪劣商品犯罪，还是假冒注册商标等侵犯知识产权犯罪，都带有一定欺诈性[9]。但正如销售伪劣产品罪名虽然与诈骗罪均可以表现为“骗”的形式，却与诈骗罪不存在普通法和特殊法之间的关系，两者犯罪构成却是相对独立的。在销售伪劣产品罪中，行为人往往具有真实的交易意图也实际存在交易行为，交付的标的物仍然具有基本属性，目的通过“以次充好”、“以假充真”等瑕疵履行的方式来赚取差价、谋取暴利，还属于民事欺诈的范畴。而在诈骗犯罪中，行为人根本没有交易意图，并不想发生真实的交易，使用的“交易物”几乎都是毫无价值或者没有任何成本的东西，甚至是子虚乌有，只是以“交易”为名骗取他人财物，其实质是虚构骗局、诱人上当。
From the point of view of the distinction between civil fraud and criminal fraud, the acts committed by the platforms involved are beyond the limits of civil fraud. For example, the crimes of intellectual property violations, whether “production of falsely falsely false, suboptimal, suboptimal or falsely registered trademarked products” are somewhat fraudulent [9]. But, just as the offences of sale of falsely false products may take the form of “swindling”, they are not linked to the offence of fraud by common law or special law, which is relatively independent. In the case of the sale of hypocritical products, the perpetrators often have real intent and actual conduct of the transaction, the objects delivered still have basic attributes, the purpose of which is to earn a price, profit, and civil fraud.
因虚拟货币平台与炒作其他标的的非法交易平台存在一定的共通性，笔者查询关于此类非法交易平台的多个判例，大部分认为此类案件的骗点在于“将对赌包装成投资，即被害人陷入自以为投资的误解中而自愿交付钱财入金开户，参与其本不欲参与的虚假投资。这一笼统的事实根据欺骗层面又可拆分为诸多小”骗点”（1）虚构系真实、正规，实时对接大盘的交易平台，隐瞒公司与客户之间的对赌关系。（2）虚构出入金自由的真相，隐瞒平台封闭、被害人钱款进入平台即被控制，出入不自由的事实。（3）隐瞒平台指导是意图是让客户亏损的真相。（4）隐瞒平台对交易软件的控制、价格走势的操控真相。需要说明的是，拆分层次的目的和意义主要是为了确定不同身份的涉案人员的个体责任，结合具体嫌疑人主观认知程度进行判断定性；同时为避免过于割裂地分析某个行为的性质，拆分的同时也注重对平台整个模式进行分析和评价。
As there is some commonality between virtual money platforms and illegal trading platforms that are punctuated by other subjects, I have consulted a number of cases about such illegal trading platforms. Most of these cases are considered to have been fraudulently “invested in the packaging of gambling funds, i.e., the victim's voluntary delivery of money into a bank account in a misunderstanding of his own investment, and his or her participation in a false investment that he or she would not otherwise be involved in. This general fact, based on the level of deception, can be broken down into a number of small “false spots”: (1) the fiction that the platform is genuine, formal, real-time, conceals the relationship between the company and the client; (2) the fictional freedom of entry and exit, conceals the truth about the closure of the platform and the fact that the victim's money access to the platform is controlled; (3) the concealment of platform's guidance is intended to cause the client to lose. (4) The concealment of the platform's control over the trade software, the manipulation of prices, and the significance of the platform's model and evaluation.
从第一层面来看，仅隐瞒公司与客户之间的对赌关系，笔者认为尚未达到诈骗罪语义中的欺诈，因不排除部分平台希望通过开展对赌合约业务的经营行为，在运营中遵守对赌的公平原则，这与诈骗罪直接骗取对方财物的方式应有所区别。
At the first level, only the relationship between the company and the client is concealed, and it is my view that fraud has not yet reached the definition of the crime of fraud, since it does not exclude that some platforms wish to operate in a way that respects the principle of fair play by engaging in the business of gambling contracts, which should be distinguished from the way in which fraud directs each other's property.
从第二层面来看，入金诱导和拖延出金，尚不能直接指向财产损失，需要结合其他行为一同评价。
At the second level, inducing and delaying payments cannot yet point directly to the loss of property and need to be evaluated in conjunction with other acts.
从第三层面来看，在对赌、封闭的状态下，进行频繁操作诱导、反向建议、高杠杆、重仓的诱导的行为，是在市场原有高风险的基础上，数倍放大了客户风险，增加了客户亏损概率，是一种突破了公平交易底线，道德底线的欺骗行为。
At the third level, frequent operations, counter-inducement, high leverage, and retrenchment in a gambling, closed state have multiplied the risk to customers and increased the probability of their losses, based on pre-existing high risks in the market, as a form of deception that has crossed the bottom line of fair trading and the moral bottom line.
有观点认为，对没有事先预知行情，没有操控交易软件的反向建议操作，不应当认定为诈骗罪。如《刑事审判参考》总第113集第1238号徐波等人非法经营案（绍兴中院审理）判决要旨认为：被告人将行情反向提供给客户的行为不成立诈骗罪中的“虚构事实”。因为诈骗罪中的虚构事实是虚构与客观事实相反的事实，并不包括行为人不能控制、存在或然性的对将来事实的预测。该案提到的涉案天津纭沣公司使用的是天津矿产资源交易所的交易平台，不具备现货原油销售资质，存在反向建议是存在对赌关系的明确信号，该案例也提到“手续费和盈利全部进入天津纭沣账户”，可以确认系与客户对赌。
The view was expressed that the reverse proposal to operate a transactional software without prior knowledge or control should not be considered a fraud. For example, in the case of the illegal operation of Xubo et al. (Shou Heng Jing Jing Jing et al.) in Criminal Trial Reference Series 113, No. 1238, it was decided that the defendant would not create a “fiction” in the crime of fraud, because the fictional fact in the crime of fraud was that it was contrary to objective facts and did not include predictions of future facts that the perpetrator could not control, exist or be intuitive. The trading platform of the Tianjin Mineral Resources Exchange referred to in the case in question was a trading platform of the Tianjin Resources Exchange, did not have the qualifications to sell crude oil, and the existence of counter-advice advice was a clear signal of the existence of a gambling relationship, and the case also referred to the “full entry of fees and profits into the Tianjin Account” could confirm that it was against the customer.
诈骗罪中的事实，还包括未来现象的当下事实，因为对将来事实的欺骗也会使人发生错误认识并交付财产。与事实陈述相反，价值判断则仅仅是一种个人的见解或者看法，事实陈述与价值判断之间的界限，往往是流淌变化，不易区分的。决定性之处在于，是否表述内容中包含一个可被检验和复查的实质内核，简言之，是否具有可验证性。[10]如本文中介绍的反向建议即存在一个后续验证行为“如成功让客户亏损，则让客户扛单，如建议失败，则建议客户立即卖出”，且后续验证是在平台对客户交易的执行力监督基础上做出，此类验证行为使得反向建议超出了对未来事实预测、价值判断的范畴，向诈骗罪欺诈的领域进一步延申。
The facts in the crime of fraud also include the present facts of the future, since deception of future facts may lead to misperceptions and the delivery of property. Contrary to statements of fact, value judgements are merely an individual opinion or opinion, and the line between factual statements and value judgements is often fluid and not easily distinguishable. The decisive point is whether the content of the statements contains a substantive inner core that can be tested and reviewed and, in short, verifiable. [10] There is a subsequent act of verification “if the client is successful in making a loss to the customer, then the customer is advised to sell immediately if the proposal fails” and follow-up certification is based on the platform's enforcement oversight of the customer's transaction, which makes the counter-recommendation go beyond predictions of future facts, value judgements, and extends further into the area of fraud.[10]
如绍兴中院在徐波案后又审理了类似判例，如（2019）浙06刑终440号孙坤朋诈骗罪的裁判文书中提到：原审被告人隐瞒投资者与自己交易的事实，如果投资者知道自己交易对方是原审被告人，肯定不会听从原审被告人提供的行情建议，系典型的隐瞒真相。客观上原审被告人不能完全控制投资者交易，故原审被告人采用恶意诱导方式，在投资者赢利后，原审被告人则立即让投资者卖出止赢...。
For example, in the case of Xu-Boh, similar jurisprudence has been heard since the Xu-Bo trial, as mentioned in the judgement on Sun Qunpen's fraud in 2019, at the end of the sentence, that the defendant in question concealed the fact that the investor was trading with himself, and that if the investor knew that he was trading with the defendant, it would not follow the advice of the defendant in question, which was typical of the truth. The defendant in question could not exercise complete control over the investor's dealings objectively, so the defendant in question used malicious inducements, and immediately after the investor had won, the defendant in question would have let the investor stop selling...
综上，笔者认为，对赌状态下的反向建议并附加后续验证行为的，构成诈骗罪意义上的欺诈。对于频繁操作，如单独审视，因手续费是明规则，且平台每次操作均得到客户同意，难以证明和判断是否是频繁操作，更难去界定频繁操作和必要操作的差额，但正如之前所述，此类平台各种诈骗手段与非诈骗手段相互结合，应当统一结合，不应当割裂审视。
In summary, it is my view that fraud in the sense of fraud is associated with reverse advice and subsequent certification in a gambling state. For frequent operations, such as a separate examination, it is difficult to prove and judge whether the platform operates frequently, and it is more difficult to define the difference between frequent and necessary operations, given that the fees are clear rules and that each operation is agreed to by the client, but, as previously stated, the various means of fraud in such platforms are combined with non-fraud methods, should be integrated and should not be looked at separately.
关于反向、频繁操作建议与客户亏损之间因果关系的认定：对于事先不知道行情的反向建议，嫌疑人往往辩解与客户亏损之间不存在必然因果关系，部分涉案人员则辩解投资虚拟货币的期货本身足以导致客户基本亏损的局面，反向建议等行为仅加快了客户亏损的速度而已。
As regards the determination of the causal link between reverse, frequent operational and customer losses: in the case of reverse proposals without prior knowledge, suspects tend to argue that there is no necessary causal link between the loss and the loss of the client, while some of the persons involved argue that the futures of the investment in the virtual currency are in itself sufficient to result in a substantial loss to the client, and actions such as reverse advice merely accelerate the loss of the client.
另有裁判观点认为：作为具有正常、理性思维的成年人可以自主决定如何交易，且明知交易有风险，鼓动、诱导高频交易以及提供反向建议只能影响客户的判断，而不能必然导致对此遵循。即使遵循也可能出现未亏损反而盈利的情况。因此，提供反向建议与损失亦不存在直接的因果关系，况且还不能排除部分交易是未受上述的影响而自主决定的。[11]该观点核心是从客户具有交易自主性来否认因果关系，并认为反向建议有可能并不准确。
It has also been decided that, as adults with normal and rational thinking, they are free to decide how to deal, and that, knowing that the transaction is risky, encourage, induce high-frequency transactions and offer counter-advisory advice can only affect the client’s judgment, and not necessarily lead to compliance. Even if there is a risk that there may be no loss, there is no direct causal link between the offer and the loss, and it cannot be excluded that some of the transactions are autonomously determined without the above-mentioned influence. [11] The point is that the client’s autonomy in the transaction denies causality, and that the reverse advice may be inaccurate.[11]
按照必然因果关系说，当危害行为中包含着危害结果产生的根据，并合乎规律产生危害结果则属于必然因果关系，如果某一现象虽然有引起危害后果的可能性，但发生过程中，偶然与另一因果性的锁链联系在一起，一致由另一现象合乎规律地产生这一结果时，那么前一现象和所发生的结果之间就没有因果关系。
In terms of necessary causality, where the hazardous act contains the basis on which the result of the harm is produced and the result of the harm is produced on a regular basis, there is no causal link between the former and the result that occurs if a phenomenon, although it has the potential to cause the consequences of the harm, is incidentally linked to another causal chain in the course of its occurrence, and the result is produced by another phenomenon on a regular basis.
在必然性与偶然性交织的案件中，“必然—偶然”因果关系理论无法给出具有说服力的解释，因必然性与偶然性标准欠缺具体而明确的判断规则，导致对因果关系可以作出肯定意义上的空洞解释，却难以作出否定意义上的实质排除或确认。[12]在科学发展的今天，一些人会通过制造条件的方式实现犯罪，但必然因果关系说却将这种行为排除在原因之外。[13]
In the case of inevitability and casual sexual intercourse, the theory of “necessary-octual” causality cannot give a convincing explanation, and the absence of specific and clear rules of judgement based on the criteria of inevitability and accident leads to a positive, hollow interpretation of causation, which makes it difficult to make a negative substantive exclusion or confirmation. [12] Today, in scientific development, some people commit crimes by creating conditions, but necessarily the causality is said to exclude the cause.[13]
条件说是法律上因果关系的事实基础，是所有因果关系理论都无法回避的起点，该学说求助于思维上的排除法，即设想条件不存在时，结果是否同样发生，在行为人故意地实施危害行为的场合，假设没有类似行为，结果也会发生的，一般作为刑法上的假定因果关系加以讨论。如部分涉案人员辩解，因虚拟货币的市场行情本身具有极大的不稳定性，同时叠加期货交易本身的高风险性，即没有反向建议等人为干预客户最终也要亏损，此辩解即属于假定因果关系的范畴。
Condition is the factual basis of legal causality and the starting point from which all causality theories cannot be avoided, and the doctrine refers to intellectual exclusions, i.e., whether the result occurs equally when the conditions are assumed to be non-existent, and, in cases where the perpetrator intentionally commits a harmful act, assuming that there is no similar act and that the result will also occur, generally discussed as a criminal law presumption of causality. If some of the persons involved argue that the market behaviour of the virtual currency is inherently highly unstable, and that the risk of the futures transaction itself is compounded by the absence of counter-proposals and the eventual loss of the client to intervene, this argument falls within the scope of the presumption of causality.
笔者赞同下述观点，在假定结果会发生的场合，行为人的危害行为和结果之间的具体因果关系可以确定，行为人不能以由代为行为人为由，主张他的行为不可责。如战争中杀人的士兵，不能认为如果该士兵不杀人，被害人也会为其他士兵所杀，从而否认该士兵杀人行为是制造法益风险的行为，私自杀害即将被执行死刑的犯人，也同样构成故意杀人罪[14]。另外，虚拟货币期货的高风险性是行为人反向建议前已经存在的状态且由平台自身设置，并非行为实施后的外力介入因素，如一起裁判文书[15]中提到：水压不足等物业管理不足是放火前已经存在的状态，而非放火行为后的外力介入因素，与危害后果之间不存在刑法意义上的多因一果关系..。
The author shares the view that, where the consequences are assumed, the specific causal link between the perpetrator's harmful conduct and the result is established, and the perpetrator cannot claim that he is not responsible for his actions on the ground that he was the perpetrator. For example, a soldier who kills a soldier in a war cannot be considered to have been killed by other soldiers if the soldier does not kill, thus denying that the soldier's killing is an act that creates a risk of legal gain and that the murder of a prisoner who is about to be executed constitutes an intentional crime [14]. Moreover, the high risk of a virtual currency future is that the perpetrator is in a state that existed prior to the proposal and is set up by the platform itself and is not a factor of external intervention after the commission of the act, as mentioned in a single adjudicative instrument [15]: inadequate management of property, such as water pressure, is a state that existed prior to the fire, rather than a factor of external intervention following the act of fire, and that there is no multi-effect relationship in the sense of criminal law with the consequences of the harm.
从客观归责理论来看，反向建议等行为制造、增加法所不容许的风险，从规范评价角度来说，可以归责于行为人。至于被害人是否同意他人造成风险（完全认识到风险并且有意识造成了风险），笔者认为，对于配合“执行力监督”的反向建议，甚至如不跟单便被限制登录、强平等手段的，已经超出被害人同意和自主选择交易的范畴。
From the point of view of the theory of objective attribution, the risk of behaviour such as reverse recommendations creating and adding to a law that is not permissible can be attributed to the perpetrator from the point of view of normative evaluation. As to the victim's consent to the risk posed by others (who is fully aware of the risk and consciously creates the risk), the author believes that the reverse advice of cooperating with “executive oversight” is beyond the scope of the victim's consent to, and free choice of, the transaction, even if access is restricted without a record.
诚然，反向建议的成功率取决于引导者的准确判断水平，根据不同引导者的水准，反向引导的准确率有高有低，导致少数客户因失误的反向引导反而出现盈利情况，对此，应当整体衡量行为与损失的因果关系，如采取流行病学上的统计方法，经过大量观察样本，确认行为是否具有导致结果发生的高度盖然性，从而降低控方责任，有效保护法益。（1）首先，从经验法则上来看，反向建议等行为除了直接导致客户亏损，更为核心的作用是将客户引导至高风险，极易受重创的危险状态。这种行为可以有效导致客户亏损率的升高，否则反向引导不会普遍存在于炒作各种标的的非法平台之中，且作为导致客户亏损的手段长期存在。（2）从客户亏损次数来衡量是否反向建议并不合理，因反向建议的目的并非让客户每次均亏损，而是多次小盈利、单次大亏损，即减少客诉，又达到一举重创客户资金的目的，平台甚至将这种：“高超的平衡能力”作为对分析师的考核指标。对此建议可通过受到反向建议等诱导的客户亏损人数、金额、次数、频率与自主操作的客户相应数据做出对比，增加因果关系的说服力。
To be sure, the success rate of the reverse proposal depends on the level of accurate judgement of the leader and, depending on the standards of the different guides, the accuracy of the reverse direction is high and low, leading a small number of clients to be profitable by misdirection. In this regard, the causality of behaviour and loss should be measured as a whole, for example, through the adoption of epidemiological statistical methods that confirm the high propensity of the behaviour that leads to the outcome, thereby reducing the prosecution's responsibility and protecting the benefits of the law effectively. (1) First, in terms of empirical law, in addition to direct loss of the client, the more central role of the reverse recommendation is to direct the client to a high risk and to reduce the vulnerability of the client to a serious risk.
从第四层面来看，对于后台技术人为控制K线图走势，对客户账户进行数据回滚、强制平仓等操作，客户却认为自己是投资失误而造成损失，对此认定欺诈和损失之间的因果关系也并不存在障碍。
At the fourth level, there is no impediment to finding a causal link between fraud and loss in the case of back-office techs controlling the movement of K-line maps, data rollbacks to client accounts, forced silos, etc.
四、财产损失的认定标准及犯罪数额的计算标准
Criteria for the identification of property losses and the calculation of the amount of the offence
我国刑法虽然未在法条中明文规定“财产损失”，但将“数额较大”作为诈骗罪的成立条件，因此财产损失是诈骗罪成立的必不可少的要件。[16]财产损失直接影响到犯罪数额的认定以及相应量刑，需要准确把握认定标准。
Although our criminal law does not expressly provide for “loss of property” in the articles of the law, it makes “greater amount” a condition for the establishment of the offence of fraud, so that the loss of property is an essential element for the establishment of the offence of fraud. [16] The loss of property directly affects the determination of the amount of the offence and the corresponding sentence, and requires an accurate determination of the criteria for its establishment.
在非法虚拟货币交易平台中，若客户最终出金大于投入资金，被阻止获取的预期盈利是否应当认定为财产损失，对此存在一定的争议，简单来说，从客户本可以获利的角度来说，客户是亏损的，但从客户投入的本金和最终出金数额对比来看，客户并没有亏损。
In the context of illicit virtual currency trading platforms, there is some controversy as to whether the expected profit that the client is prevented from earning should be considered a loss of property if the client ultimately makes more money than he invests, which, in short, is a loss in terms of the profits that the client could have earned, but there is no loss in terms of the principal and final amount of the money that the client invests.
理论上诈骗罪中“财产损失”认定标准存在两种不同的观点：一种观点是“整体财产说”，即从整体上来考察被害人的财产受有损失，如使用欺诈方法骗取财物，但同时又支付了相应价值的财物，被害人财产的整体并没有受到损害，则不能构成诈骗罪。[17]而另一种观点“个别财产说”认为：即便行为人向被害人支付了相应的款物，也不影响诈骗罪的成立。
The theoretical definition of “property loss” in the fraud offence is based on two different views: one view is that there is an overall view of the damage to the victim's property, such as the use of fraudulent means to obtain property while paying the corresponding value, and that the whole of the victim's property does not constitute a fraud offence.[17] The other view is “individually stated” that, even if the perpetrator paid the victim the corresponding sum, it does not affect the establishment of the fraud offence.
根据《最高人民法院关于审理诈骗案件具体应用法律的若干问题的解释》第九条的规定，“对于多次进行诈骗，并以后次诈骗财物归还前次诈骗财物，在计算诈骗数额时，应当将案发前已经归还的数额扣除，按实际未归还的数额认定，量刑时可将多次行骗的数额作为从重情节予以考虑”。即认定多次诈骗的犯罪数额时，司法解释遵循“整体财产说”。
According to article 9 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court of Certain Questions Concerning the Specific Application of the Law in Cases of Fraud, “For repeated frauds and subsequent frauds, the amount of the fraud shall be deducted from the amount of the fraud that was returned prior to the commission of the offence and, on the basis of the amount that was not actually returned, the amount of the fraud may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance in the determination of the sentence.” That is, when determining the amount of the offence of multiple frauds, the judicial interpretation follows the “total property statement”.
笔者建议，在认定虚拟货币平台诈骗的犯罪数额时建议参照“整体财产说”，以投资人实际亏损数额来认定，从实务操作角度来说，虚拟货币平台引入的历史行情无法恢复，难以准确界定各投资人预期获取盈利的数额节点，若被害人均以曾经可以获取的利益来主张损失，也不利于判决后追赃挽损工作的顺利进行。
It is suggested that, in determining the amount of the crime of virtual money platform fraud, reference should be made to the “total property” and that the actual loss of the investor should be judged by the fact that, from a practical point of view, the historical situation introduced by the virtual money platform could not be restored and it would be difficult to define accurately the point of the amount of profit that each investor expected to earn, if the victim claimed the loss on the basis of the benefits that had been obtained, and would not be conducive to the smooth running of the post-judgment recovery process.
对犯罪数额是否可以扣除客户手续费、自行做单导致的亏损，笔者认同，对于对能够认识到平台操控性的，在该平台内无正常交易可言，在此过程中产生的所谓手续费并不具有手续费的真正含义，系行为人为维持投资假象所巧立的名目[18]，骗局中徒劳无果的浪费性支出。
As to whether the amount of the offence can be deducted from the client's fee and the loss resulting from self-directed payments, I agree that there is no normal transaction within the platform that can be recognized for the manipulation of the platform and that the so-called transaction fees that arise in the process do not have the true meaning of the transaction fee, is the wasteful expense of the perpetrator in order to maintain the false image of the investment.[18]
行为人目的系设局诈骗钱财，不能将案件部分事实割裂开来单独评价、单独考量投资者某次或局部盈利以及某个投资者盈利，而是要考量整个犯罪中全部投资者盈亏情况，将部分事实放到整个案件中，客户自行操作盈亏的结果均未超出行为人的主观故意及犯罪所需的成本，故对所谓手续费及客户自行操作的亏损部分均应计入相应犯罪数额。
The purpose of the perpetrator was to set up a scheme to defraud money, not to separate the facts of the case, to take into account the profits of an investor in a particular or partial way and the profits of an investor, but rather to take into account the profits and losses of all investors in the crime as a whole, so that the result of the client's own operation of the profit or loss did not exceed the perpetrator's subjective intent and the costs of the crime, so that the so-called fees and losses of the client's own operation should be taken into account in the corresponding amount of the offence.
五、量刑
V. Sentencing
有观点认为，交易者进入市场属于高风险的投资行为，交易者自身应当具备相应的风险意识，对自己的投资盈亏承担一定责任，如在正常的证券、期货市场中，如按照操纵期货市场罪最高刑期为有期徒刑10年，如按照诱骗投资者买卖证券、期货合约最来规制，最高也是有期徒刑10年，相比最高刑期可达无期徒刑的诈骗罪，刑法对该类市场不当行为体现出较为宽缓的刑事政策，故类似与本案的情形应当参照特殊领域的政策，从宽处理。[19]
The view was expressed that traders' access to markets was a high-risk investment and that traders themselves should have a corresponding sense of risk and be held responsible for their own investment gains and losses, for example in the normal securities, futures markets, where the maximum sentence for futures market manipulation was 10 years' imprisonment, as in the case of securitization of investors, futures contracts, and 10 years' imprisonment, compared with fraud, where the maximum sentence was life imprisonment, and criminal law reflected a more lenient criminal policy towards that type of market misconduct, so that situations similar to the present case should be treated with leniency in the light of policies in specific areas[19].
笔者认为，操纵期货市场等罪名中，由于交易行为发生在正规交易场所内，针对行为人而言存在政策、市场导向和资金入市等大量的不确定、不可控因素，因此行为人需要利用信息优势或市场主导地位进行蛊惑交易、或”抢帽子”操纵、或重大事件操纵、或利用信息优势等一系列的操纵市场行为。反之，本文提到的非法虚拟货币交易平台中，所有交易都在行为人虚拟“大盘”中进行，平台完全掌握“大盘”的人力、物力、信息力，存在封闭性、控制性，利用信息不对称优势，虚构事实、隐瞒真实来欺骗投资者，该行为的社会危害性、法益侵害的高风险性均与操纵证券类罪名不同，不能参照适用。
In my view, in such offences as futures market manipulation, because of the fact that the transaction takes place in a formal trading place, the large number of uncertainties and uncontrollable factors, such as policy, market orientation and money entry, for the perpetrator, the need for the perpetrator to use information advantages or market dominance for a series of market manipulations, or “hatting” manipulations, or major events manipulations, or the use of information advantages. Conversely, in the illegal virtual currency trading platforms referred to in this paper, all transactions are carried out in the perpetrator's virtual “platform”, with the platform's full grasp of the “big plate” of human, material, information power, closure, control, as well as the use of information asymmetric advantages, false facts and concealment of the truth to deceive investors.
结语：对刑事处罚范围的思考
Concluding remarks: reflections on the scope of criminal penalties
非法虚拟货币交易平台往往以合法公司的形式开展经营，如租赁办公室，配备完善的经营团队，申领相应营业执照和正常缴纳税款，员工均通过正常招聘手续入职。此类平台被查获后，除入职时间较短的员工，均可能会被刑事追诉。对此，司法机关面临如何确定共犯的刑事处罚范围，妥善把握刑事追诉的范围和边界等问题。
Illegal virtual money-trading platforms often operate in the form of legal companies, such as rental offices, well-equipped business teams, appropriate business licences and regular tax payments, and employees are recruited through regular recruitment procedures.
对于作为公司的中高层员工或者起了较大作用的下层员工，他们常常对公司的诈骗经营模式和客户极大亏损率是明知的，对自身行为非道德性能明确感知，但此情况下，仍然积极为公司工作，虽然直接目的是为了工资和生活，但对于公司的犯罪行为及后果却采取了一种放任的态度，属于间接故意的心理状态。
As middle- and senior-level employees of a company, or lower-level employees who have played a greater role, they are often aware of the company's fraudulent business model and the client's high loss rate and have a clear sense of the immorality of their behaviour, but in this context they are still actively working for the company and, while directly aiming for wages and living, have adopted a liberal attitude towards the company's criminal behaviour and consequences, which is an indirect and deliberate psychological state.
在案件的具体处理，特别是打击层面与范围上，建议针对各涉案人员按照层级、分工、作用的不同进行了区分，通过判断部门职责、个人行为与违法犯罪的关联性、对于犯罪结果的支配力、否具有明显法益侵害性、从侵害的法益中获利情况、个人在促成危害后果中的主动性程度来综合确认。
In terms of the specific handling of cases, in particular the level and scope of the attack, it is recommended that a distinction be made between the different levels, division of labour and roles of the persons involved, and that a comprehensive identification be made by judging the degree of responsibility of the department, the relevance of the individual's conduct to the offence, the power over the outcome of the crime, the existence of a clear legal advantage, the benefits derived from the violation of the law, and the degree of initiative of the individual in contributing to the consequences of the harm.
对入职时间不长、涉案金额较小，考虑到其初入社会，社会经验有限，判断能力有所欠缺，且在犯罪活动中仅起到次要、辅助作用，根据宽严相济的刑事政策，建议宽缓处理。如《关于办理涉互联网金融犯罪案件有关问题座谈会纪要》规定：“对于无相关职业经历、专业背景，且从业时间短暂，在单位犯罪中层级较低，纯属执行单位领导指令的犯罪嫌疑人提出辩解的，如确实无其他证据证明其具有主观故意的，可以不作为犯罪处理。”
The summary of the Colloquium on Problems Related to Handling Internet-related Financial Crimes provides that: “A person who has no relevant professional experience, professional background, and has a short professional career, has a lower rank in the unit's crime and is solely responsible for the execution of an order from the head of the unit may not be treated as a criminal offence if there is no other evidence to suggest that he or she is subjective.”
刑罚有度，法律的公正天平才不会倾斜，对此类平台的处理的目的在于通过办理案件惩治了一批人，教育了一批人，既精准有效地打击了违法犯罪行为，又取得了良好的法律效果和社会效果。
The aim of such platforms is to punish and educate a group of people through the handling of cases, both precisely and effectively combating offences and achieving good legal and social effects.
[1]新型经济犯罪实务精释 罗开卷著 P257
[1] Excision of new economic crime practices & nbsp; Rolling P257
[2]刑事案例诉辩审评中国检察出版社 P184-198 主编：刘晖、劳娃
[2] Review of criminal cases by Chinese procuratorial publisher P184-198, Editor-in-chief: Liu Xuan, Lauva
[3]检察风云 2010年第8期人头骨买卖第一案
[3] Procuring Windyun, Case No. 8 of 2010 for the human skull.
[4]中国刑事审判指导案例刘溪等人非法经营案 P540-544
[4] Illegal operation of Liu Qui et al. in China's criminal trial instruction case P540-544
[5]《中国市场》 2019年第32期 P34-38页非法期货交易的认定标准探究崔恒力、周寅
[5] The Chinese Market, No. 32, 2019.
[6]刑法总论精释下 陈兴良
[6] The general theory of criminal law has set the record straight, Chen Heung Lian.
[7]中国刑事审判指导案例第71号王昌和变造金融票证案 P151-152
[7] China Criminal Trial Guidance Case No. 71, Wang Chang and Financial Certificates P151-152
[8]陈兴良.规范刑法学[M].中国人民大学出版社，2008
[8] Chen Heng Liang. Normative criminal law [M]. Chinese People's University Press, 2008
[9]刑事司法指南 操纵证券市场罪：行为本质及司法认定
[9] Criminal justice guide Portfolio manipulation crimes: nature of conduct and judicial findings
[10]陈兴良 刑法各论精释（上）2015年9月第一版
[10] Chen Xingqian, exaggeration of criminal laws (up) 1st edition of September 2015
[11] 2017）粤0306刑初3947号吴筱、吴一帆非法经营、诈骗一审刑事判决书
[11] & nbsp; 2017) Criminal Judgement No. 3947 at the beginning of the sentence of Liu 0306, No. Wu Yifan illegal operation, fraud in the first instance
[12]梁云宝：回归与突破：我国刑法因果关系在归属层面的厘清南京师大学报(社会科学版)》 2019年第5期 P120-131页
[12] Liang Yunbao: Returns and breakthroughs: A description of the causal relationship of our criminal law at the level of attribution, Nanjing University Journal (Social Sciences Edition), 2019, No. 5, p. 120-131
[13]张明楷刑法学 第五版 P175
[13] Zhang Mystery of Criminal Law, 5th ed. P175
[14]刑法总论第三版周光权著 P123
[14] 3rd edition of the General Law of Criminal Law, P123
[15] 2018 浙刑终82号裁判文书
[15] & nbsp; 2018 Final Judgment No. 82
[16]刘明祥：《论诈骗罪中的财产损害》，载张志勇等编著：《诈骗罪专题整理》，中国人民公安大学出版社2007年版，第207页。
[16] Liu Mingxiang: Damage to property in the case of fraud, edited by Zhang Zhiyong et al., " Collation of the topic of fraud ", 2007 edition, Chinese People's Public Security University Press, p. 207.
[17]日]中山研一：《概说刑法II》，成文堂2000年版，第150页。
[17] Nakayama I: General Penal Code II, 2000 edition, p. 150.
[18]（2016）浙0603刑初1077号梁琛等人诈骗案
[18] (2016) 1077 et al. fraud at the beginning of the X0603 trial
[19]阮方民、李永红、徐宗新：刑事辩护的专家经验
[19] Nguyen Fangmin, Lee Yonghong, Xu Zongxin: expert experience in criminal defence
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论