Judicial Identification Of "Collusion In Advance" Type Of Stolen Goods Sales

The crime of "collusion in advance" is a very special crime phenomenon.This kind of crime is generally manifested as a one-train crime form of "you take my sale",that is,for those who do not participate in theft,robbery,fraud and other crimes,only sell stolen goods after the fact,if the upstream criminal has carried out a conspiracy plan in advance,according to the Supreme People’s Court issued No.11 [2015] fifth judicial interpretation,Such sale of stolen goods should be treated as the joint crime of the upstream crime rather than the offence of concealing the crime.However,it is worth discussing why this judicial interpretation does not violate the principle of complicity in our country.At the same time,in the application of the judicial interpretation of this article,there is also a phenomenon of different judgments in the judicial practice.In addition,under the premise of cracking down on the sale of stolen goods by concealing crimes,the application of the above judicial interpretation will inevitably lead to the expansion of the scope of identification of accomplices,the tendency of heavy punishment,and the weakening of the original intention of the formulation of the offense of concealing crimes.Therefore,based on the different sentencing phenomena of the "collusion in advance" type of illicit goods crime,this paper combines the provisions of Article 5 of the legal interpretation [2015]11,and further clarifies the establishment boundary of the "collusion in advance" in the identification of accomplices.Finally,it will be realized to distinguish and define the circumstances in line with Article 5 of Law Interpretation [2015]11 in the category phenomenon of "collusion in advance" type of stolen goods crime,and ultimately help the judicial organs to convict and sentence more accurately in practice.The first chapter mainly puts forward the main problems to be solved in this paper from the perspective of different judgments of different types of cases,that is,in the application of Article 5 of Law Interpretation [2015]11,there are differences and confusion about under what circumstances it is enough to identify the "collusion in advance" type of sale of goods and the upstream crime as accomplices.At the same time,this chapter raises the question: why can fence be identified as an accomplice of predicate crime when there is only the subjective intentional element of "prior collusion" and the actual fact of joint execution? In addition,even if the fence’s accomplice is recognized,what kind of accomplice should it belong to? Similarly,in the case of denying the establishment of joint crime,it is naturally clear that the fence to cover up the crime of crime to evaluate the situation.The second chapter mainly states the reasons why Article 5 of Interpretation[2015]11 should fall under the attention requirement.The first is to demonstrate that this judicial interpretation should not be identified as a fictional provision from the logical system of legal establishment.The second is to demonstrate that this judicial interpretation does not add new norms of crime and responsibility on the basis of the original provisions from the perspective of the change of norms of crime and responsibility.The third is to provide theoretical basis for the punishment conclusion of accomplice of "collusion in advance" type crime of fence crime by using the theory of causal accomplice.The second chapter mainly states the reasons why Article 5 of Interpretation[2015]11 should belong to the attention requirement.The first is to demonstrate that this judicial interpretation should not be identified as a fictional provision from the logical system of legal establishment;the second is to demonstrate that this judicial interpretation does not add new criminal and criminal norms on the basis of the original provisions from the perspective of the change of criminal and criminal norms;the third is to use the causal accomplice theory to provide theoretical basis for the punishment conclusion of accomplice in the crime of "collusion in advance" type of fence crime.The fourth chapter discusses the situation that the crime of "collusion in advance" should be punished as a helper.In this part,the fences are divided into physical aid offenders and psychological aid offenders,and the restrictive conditions for the establishment of two different types of aid offenders are discussed in order to make a more accurate criminal jurisprudence evaluation of fences from the illegal level.The fifth chapter is the conclusion part of this paper,which mainly summarizes the core viewpoints of this paper,that is,in addition to the use of the fifth article of Interpretation [2015]11 to determine the "prior collusion" type of fence behavior,the possibility of establishing a conspiracy co-principal and an accomplice should be considered,and the situation of establishing an abettor without dispute is discussed in this part.Thus,it is concluded that the criminal evaluation of the "collusion in advance" type sale of stolen goods can be carried out by concealing and concealing the offence.