On The Nature Of Extortion In The Process Of Consumer Rights Protection

In ordinary cases of extortion, because the perpetrator and the victim usually do nothave antecedent legal disputes, it’s easy to identify the perpetrator’s extortion. But forextortion happens in the process of consumer rights protection, because the perpetrator has alegitimate right to claim against the victim, it’s hard to identify the perpetrator’s subjectivepurpose.On the other hand, in the civil sphere, when the exercise of rights is balked, the rightsholders will inevitably to use some auxiliary means, forcing the other to fulfill theirobligations as soon as possible. So it’s also quite difficult to draw a clear distinction betweenthese auxiliary means and “blackmail behavior” in the extortion crime. These two majortheoretical problems results in different judgments under similar cases, and have affected theauthority and fairness of the criminal law greatly, and become dual hot issue in the studies ofcriminal and civil law in recent years.In order to better define "extortion" in the process of consumer rights protection, thisarticle take "Yanjing Beer Case" for example, combining with extraterritorial legislation study,starting with the perpetrator’s subjective purpose and behavioral means, making use of thecomparative method, Interest balancing method, and economic analysis methodcomprehensively, demonstrating such behavior is the exercise of property rights essentiallyand is a way of resolving civil disputes. The disputes arise from the imperfection of Civil lawsand regulations of our country. This article specifically addressed the regulation principlesand means of such behaviors:As long as the means of right protection of perpetrator are in therange acceptable to the laws and the public or in the range of which is generally accepted bythe public, such behaviors should be justified and should be referred to the Civil LawRegulations; if the means of perpetrator is beyond the tolerance of social ethical order, but thecircumstances are relatively minor, and with little damage, such behaviors should be givenadministrative punishment in accordance with the provisions of "Regulations onAdministrative Penalties for Public Security"; Only the means of perpetrator which is notonly beyond tolerance of social order but also has great practical danger and has causedserious consequences should be punished for the crime constituted by the act ofmeans.Specific to the "Yanjing beer case", because Zhou Mouke, Chen Moutao used law suitand exposure as means of right protection, and such means are appropriate in the ethics ofpublic and its purpose is legitimate, therefore such behaviors does not constitute extortion. In the drafting process of this article, the author always insists on the basic legal principles offairness and justice, autonomy of private law, tolerance of Criminal Law, and makes his ownthinking in how to correctly define the nature of such behaviors.