Font Size: a A A

On The Nature Of Extortion In The Process Of Anti Counterfeiting Claims

Posted on:2016-03-29Degree:MasterType:Thesis
Country:ChinaCandidate:P P SunFull Text:PDF
GTID:2296330461962375Subject:Punishment law
Abstract/Summary:PDF Full Text Request
In an ordinary case of extortion, there is no divergence to identify the nature of the actor’s behavior and his subjective intention. However, the situation becomes more complicated when it comes to consumers’ rights. The reason is that the actor’s menace has certain legal grounds and some foundation of rights which are often abusively used, based on which the identification of coerce in a crime of extortion could be disputable. This problem gives rise to different verdicts in the same cases in the judicial practice, and the judicial authority as well as the seriousness and justice of criminal law gets affected. This kind of problem certainly becomes a research hotspot.For the purpose of a better judgment and regulation of this kind of behavior in the area of consumers’ rights, this thesis takes "Liu Jiang’s Extortion Case" as an example, starting with the identification of the subject qualification of consumers, demarcating the objective behaviors, followed by the final presumption of subjective intentions. The research methods used in the thesis are literature comparison, balance of interests, and inductive analysis. This thesis demonstrates that occupational anti-counterfeit figures are indistinctive consumers, further claiming that accusation by its nature is a practice of rights of supervision and claims. It is a legitimate action for protecting consumers’ rights under the premise of autonomy in the civilian field and we should primarily disavow such acts as criminal behaviors. Therefore it cannot be affirmed as menace in criminal sense. Taking that as a premise, it rules out the possibility of illegal possession from the perspective of the overall action. In “Liu Jiang’s extortion case”, the actor uses accusation as a strategic choice in the ongoing process of protecting his consumers’ rights. With true facts and objective grounds, this action does not violate prohibitive norms, and Liu Jiang should not be convicted. Such actions are categorized into the criminal law field mostly becausethe judges misread the relationship of criminal law’s modest principle and statutory principle, and cannot clearly distinguish criminal cases from civil cases. In legal practice, a specific case could not be generalized, rather it should be settled based on the facts and criteria of laws. Factual findings come first, followed by normative evaluation. Stick to the statutory principle with no arbitrarily accusal, meanwhile seize the modest principle in case of decriminalization. Criteria for defining ambiguous cases should be established. Besides, we should pay attention to the social effects of the criminal judgment, regarding the coordination of the socialist legal system and the balanced interests of different law departments.
Keywords/Search Tags:Liu Jiang’s extortion case, accuse for compensation, consumers, menace, the purpose of illegal possession
PDF Full Text Request
Related items