Research On The Boundary Between Consumer Rights Protection Behavior And Racketeering Crime

While consumers are paid for goods or services,the law guarantees their rights and interests within a certain period of time.In recent years,while consumers' awareness of rights protection has been increasing and their means of protection has been constantly enriched,excessive rights protection incidents beyond the boundaries of legitimate rights protection actions have also occurred many times.Excessive rights protection means that between two parties that have a breach of contract or infringement dispute,one party requests high compensation from the other party by exposing it to the news media,reporting to the government,or posting pressure on the Internet.This kind of behavior mainly has the characteristics of impaired objective rights,legal rights protection but controversial content,and the amount of claims far exceeds the actual losses.Judging from the judgment results of such acts by courts across the country,the phenomenon of different judgement in cases of excessive rights protection is more serious and affects the authority of criminal law.There are three main controversial issues that lead to different judgements in the same case.One is whether the huge claims of defenders belong to “illegal possession”,and the other is whether the means of defending rights are “threatening,coercive” acts of extortion,The third is whether the excessive behavior of consumers in defending their rights is infringing on legal interests.The above-mentioned problems also involve the protection of legal interests of property crimes,involving the “power theory”,“possession theory”and “intermediate theory” debates.The debates of different doctrines are rooted in the behavioral value theory and the result value theory about illegality.The opposition of the validity judgment of essence and purpose should be judged from the perspective of dualistic behavioral value theory.For the question of whether excessive rights protection constitutes a crime of extortion and extortion,there are mainly “guilty theory”and “innocence theory”.Each of these two theories has its theoretical support and drawbacks.Combined with China's judicial practice,it is based on the acceptance ofordinary people in the first place,the theory of “innocence” should be used as a theoretical guide to deal with the excessive behavior of consumers in defending their rights.Germany,Japan,and the United Kingdom have researched on such issues earlier than China,and their theoretical guidance has been changed several times.Their experience can be used as a reference for relevant research in China.From the perspective of constituent elements,the controversy over whether consumer excessive rights protection constitutes the crime of extortion is rooted in the unclear determination of the essence of the crime of extortion,and also whether the excessive rights protection meets the “illegal possession purpose” and whether Regulations such as “threat and coercion” are relatively vague.Therefore,it is necessary to deeply analyze the constituent elements of the crime of extortion and compare it with the excessive behavior of consumers in defending their rights.The essence of the crime of extortion and extortion is the nature of the crime,mainly including “right violation theory”,“legal advantage violation theory”,“social harmfulness theory”,“standard violation theory”,etc.The main controversy nowadays is “standard violation theory”contrary to the “Fairy Infringement Theory”.The essence of the crime of extortion should be judged on the basis of distinguishing between formal violations and substantive violations,and combining the “infringement of legal interests” and“violation of code of conduct”.As far as the determination of the purpose of illegal possession is concerned,there are different views such as the subjective confidence of the actor,the inversion of the burden of proof,the judicial presumption,and the agreement between subjective and objective.The equality of the process and the necessity of the behavior means are considered comprehensively.Because the “threat and coercion” methods of extortion have a strict judgment logic,the methods used by ordinary consumers to expose to the news media and report to relevant departments do not constitute “threat and coercion” methods.