Study On Judicial Application After Money Laundering Crime

In order to further punish the increasingly rampant domestic money laundering crimes and carry out international anti-money laundering cooperation,article 14 of the Criminal Law Amendment(11)revised the money laundering crime of article 191 of the Criminal Law,making self-money laundering an independent crime.Although the money laundering has been into the sin,but in terms of its into the legitimacy of sin still exist certain theoretical controversy,the main controversy surrounding to not punish behavior,later in the traditional stolen goods such as criminal theory,it will give the judicial authority since money laundering crime causing certain muzzle,and thus will from two perspective of theoretical basis and practical significance,It proves again that the crime of money laundering is justified.In terms of objective behavior,from the perspective of legal interest protection,combined with the contents of relevant cases,it is suggested to apply the provisions of "providing fund account" to combat the crime of self-money laundering,and at the same time to "cross-border transfer of assets" and "cover up and conceal in other ways..." To make a new understanding of the provisions.In the subjective aspect,first of all,based on the analysis of the differences in the nature of "knowing" stipulated in the general and specific provisions of the Criminal Law,the "knowing" of the provisions of money laundering crime is identified as the subjective element of excess,so even if it is deleted,the negligent crime cannot be established as the crime of money laundering.At the same time,through the analysis of different academic viewpoints,it is concluded that the judicial organization still needs to prove whether the launderer "knows" the object of crime,and it is suggested that the standard of proof should be defined as "knowing or should know",while the launderer’s "knowing" of the object of crime does not need to prove.Secondly,according to the analysis,"to cover up,conceal..." After the subjective purpose element,through the re-discussion of the relationship between indirect intent and target offense,and from the perspective of comprehensive evaluation of the legal interests of the damage,the indirect intent can be established as a crime of money laundering.Since money laundering is a crime,the new judicial application problems also arise.Through the analysis of relevant theories and theories,it is concluded that there is no concurrence and cooperation relationship between different types of upstream crime and self-money laundering in general.On this basis,self-money laundering is divided into two types,and whether the upstream crime can be punished together with several crimes is discussed respectively.For the relationship between the crime of self-money laundering and other crimes of stolen goods,by discussing whether there is a concurrence relationship between the crime of self-money laundering and other crimes of stolen goods,and combining with the principle of legal punishment,protection of legal interests and other relevant factors,it is concluded that the model of "self-money laundering" can not be applied to other crimes of stolen goods.In view of the related joint crime after money laundering.First of all,on the basis of revising the theory of binary division system,combining the theory of important role and the theory of criminal domination,the standard of principal offender and accomplice in the establishment of joint crime is defined.At the same time,the content of collusion between actors is combined to finally determine the type of joint crime formed by self-launderers and others.Secondly,in the framework of the theory of double-layer differentiation system,the principal offender and accomplice are matched with principal offender and accessory one by one in combination with relevant theories,so as to reasonably measure the self-launderer according to his identity as principal and accessory.Finally,the number of crimes of self-launderers in joint crimes should be classified and discussed according to the specific types of joint crimes.