Research On The Limitation And Reduction Of The Crime Of Helping Information Network Crime

With the rapid development of the internet and the repeated prohibition of cybercrime,the role and harmfulness of cybercrime assistance have increased significantly,even surpassing the cybercrime itself.In this context,China’s criminal law defines cybercrime assistance as an independent crime-the crime of aiding information network criminal activities(hereinafter referred to as the crime of aiding trust),endowing it with independent constitutive requirements and sentencing standards,and granting it the status of a principal offender.After the promulgation of the "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law to Criminal Cases such as Handling Illegal Use of Information Networks and Assistance in Information Network Crime Activities"(hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation")in 2019,the number of applicable crimes of aiding trust has exploded,showing a trend of "pocketing".Through a detailed analysis of 60 judicial documents published online in China,it is found that there are inadequacies in both subjective and objective aspects of the determination of the crime of aiding in trust in practice,such as unclear criteria for determining "helping" behavior,unclear criteria for "serious circumstances",controversial connotations of "knowing",and deviations in the understanding of "crime".These ambiguous factors directly lead to the "pocketing" of the application of the crime of aiding in trust.In response to the above issues,the paper discusses and analyzes them one by one from both subjective and objective aspects,using the "occupational equivalence theory" to limit the scope of punishment for network neutral help behavior;Propose to add a comprehensive evaluation standard for "serious circumstances",refine and improve the existing provisions of judicial interpretation on this basis,delete the "illegal income above 10000 yuan" standard,and introduce a quantitative crime model to evaluate helping behavior;The connotation of "knowing" is limited to the presumed "certain knowing",and the "crime" in the content of "knowing" only needs to be verified by the relevant crime.At the same time,the "knowing" is limited to a one-way cognitive framework,and the above measures are used to achieve the purpose of limiting the application of the crime of helping others.Finally,distinguish the crime of aiding in trust from several charges that are easily confused and overlap,and then discuss how to choose the charges.The crime of aiding others in trust may constitute accomplices in downstream crimes at the same time,and there is no need to distinguish between them.It is only necessary to give priority to the accomplices in downstream crimes when there are competing accomplices;The relationship between the crime of aiding in trust and the crime of concealing or concealing the proceeds of a crime(hereinafter referred to as the crime of concealing)needs to be determined according to the circumstances.The crime of aiding in trust can only be combined with the accomplice of the crime of concealing in imagination,and when combined,a heavier punishment should be chosen.In other cases,it is necessary to distinguish between the two from the perspective of behavior style and knowing the content;Because the crime of illegally using information networks is more specific and independent,when the crime of aiding trust competes with it,the crime of illegally using information networks should take precedence.In short,only under the condition of "having to" can online assistance be punished as the crime of helping others to trust,and beyond this condition,other crimes must be convicted and sentenced.It is necessary to strictly restrict the application of the crime of helping others to demonstrate the characteristics of its interception type of crime.