Study On Some Issues Of The Crime Of Counterfeiting Currency

Counterfeiting currency poses a grave harm to the society, because of itsthreat to the currency, the most important, basic tool for the social economy.The crime of counterfeiting currency, is the most basic and destructive one ofthe economic crimes, while it is the premise and foundation of the currencycrimes. Without the malefaction of counterfeiting currency, the subsequentconducts: transporting, selling, using the currency counterfeited, will notexist. Thus, how to exactly and powerfully combat the counterfeitingcurrency crime and to effectively protect the object of the crime has anextremely important practical meaning. But some aspects of this crime theory,from legislation to judicial practice, are still faulty, which I want to perfect,with my pygmy effort, in this thesis. Among a good many academic hotspotsabout this crime, I just choose four aspects to probe into, including the objectof crime, the subjective aspect of crime, the criminal unfinished pattern andthe criminal amount.The first part of the thesis is to define the object of the counterfeitingcurrency crime. Due to the abstractness, a characteristic of crime object, thereare various viewpoints about the content of the object for this crime. Themainstream views are, the national financial management order, managementsystem of currency (this is the currently universal academic opinion), thenational issue and management system of currency, the public credit to thecurrency from society, the normal circulation of foreign currency protectedby the government according to the relevant regulations and what is calledcomplex object combined by the above opinions. In the thesis, I analyze theseopinions of object one by one, following the descending order of the range ofthe criminal objects. First, if we regard the financial management system orthe national currency management system as the object for this counterfeitingcrime, although as a part of the former object, the latter one is alreadycorresponding to a relatively smaller range than the former , the ranges ofboth are still bigger than the reasonable one, which this crime iscorresponding to. Second, for the recognition to the shortage of the formertwo opinions, the third opinion refines the object to be the issue andmanagement system of currency. However, this opinion is hypercorrect,which shrink the range of the object unreasonably. I think part of the forthcomplicated object--the public credit of the currency is the exact andreasonable object for this counterfeiting crime. Protecting the currency'spublic credit and normal circulating order is the legislative goal of this crime,the premise for protecting the safety of the economic trade, also the extremeaim to render the issue right to the nation or some given institution of thegovernment. Meanwhile, the normal circulation order of the foreign currency,advocated by the fifth opinion, is actually a component part of that ofcurrency. The former belongs to the latter one, and should not be independentfrom it.The second part of my thesis pay attention to the study of the subjectiveaspect of the counterfeiting currency crime, consisted of the type and contentof subjective intent for this crime. I agree with major scholars' opinion thatconsiders this crime as a direct intent one, because this crime is a behavioraloffense, and doer's attitude to his act must be active, not passive orindifferent. The main point of this part is to study the respective contents andthe relationship between the criminal intent and criminal aim of this crime,with the reference of three mainstream views about whether this crime is anabsichtsdelikte. Firstly, it is clear that the theory to regard the aim at profits,as the criminal aim of this crime, is absolutely improper. Because thementality for money is not the criminal aim, but the criminal motive, and themotive do not effect constitution of a crime, which means the motive has nosense to the constitution of the counterfeiting currency crime. Secondly,aiming at the counterfeited currency's entry into the circulation should be thecriminal aim for this counterfeiting crime. This crime's logical relationshipwith the relevant offenses requires the aim of entering into circulation shouldbe the very one. The six offenses: selling, purchasing, transporting,smuggling, possessing, using the counterfeited money, are the subsequence ofthe counterfeiting. The relationship shows the direction of the counterfeitingis to make the false currency enter the circulation. Also, the foreignlegislative examples prove the reasonability of this aim, for example, Russianand Japanese laws regulate this crime with the aim of utility. At last,following the traditional way, I classify the absichtsdeliktes into the onewithin intent and the other one beyond intent, and I consider the aim of thecounterfeiting belongs to the one within intent. The intent of counterfeitingcurrency crime is a mental attitude that the doer is fully aware that hiscounterfeiting currency may result in invading the currency's public credit,and wishes the result to happen. Doer's aim at making the counterfeitedcurrency enter circulation is not beyond his content of intent to damage thecurrency's public credit, but is the necessary procedure before aggressing theobject, for the currency's credit and the safety of trade will not be impacted,if the counterfeited ones do not enter the circulation in a large amount.Consequently, the aim should be originally contained in the intent and thiscounterfeiting crime is the absichtsdelikte within the intent. In addition, thesignificance of classification of absichtsdelikte, in my thesis, is that only theabsichtsdelikte beyond intent has the necessity and possibility to be thestatutory one. Then, this counterfeiting crime could not be a potentionalstatutory absichtsdelikte.The third part is about the unfinished criminal pattern. First of all, forthe objective aspect of this crime, I think this crime has unfinished criminalpattern, because this crime is the behavioral offense, not the offense of actionor offense of danger, which can be proved by the characteristics of all kindsof criminal behavior types, by the regulations to this crime in subprovisionand by the legislative goal. Furthermore, the acts of behavioral offense mustpass through a certain developing procedure to be accomplished,whichmeans there are unfinished criminal patterns for behavioral offense.Consequently, as a behavioral offense, this counterfeiting crime also has thepatters. Second, the unfinished criminal patterns contain the preparation for acrime, desistance of crime and attempt of crime. And the premise foridentifying the specific unfinished patter is to define the critical pointsbetween every two individual criminal procedures. For the part of this crime,it is to define the standards of "beginning" and "accomplishment" of thecounterfeiting. Considering the act of perpetrating, counterfeiting currencyincludes simulating, plate making (or patternmaking), printing (or founding)and cutting procedures. No matter which procedure the doer enforces, the actshould be regarded as the "beginning". This crime is a behavioral offense, soits standard should be the "accomplishing" of the act itself. But following that,the standard will be various, due to the different ways of counterfeiting,because this standard is designed from the doer's subjective angle. I think thestandard should be that when the counterfeited currency is vivid enough tomake people believe it is true, the act should be regarded as accomplished.Because that vividness means the act is finished and the false money alreadyappears.The last part of my thesis focuses on whether this crime, as a behavioraloffense, needs some criminal amount as its standard to measure theconstruction. The thirteen provision of criminal law of CPRK regulates thatthe act whose circumstances are prominently slight, with tiny damage, shouldnot be considered as crime. Thus, the construction of this crime, in judicialpractice, should need some amount of the currency. So it is to say, in case thatthe sum of the money reaches a certain standard, the act could be treated as acrime, and be sued, otherwise, it could only punished by administrativeregulations as an illegal act. And the amount of this crime is thedenomination of the currency, which should be considered the kind and thesum of the counterfeited currency, in order to obtain the amount, with unit ofyuan.