Research On Accomplishment Of WeChat Red Packet Gambling Participants

The accomplice problem of WeChat red envelope gambling participants is very vague in China's judicial practice.Due to the close relationship between WeChat red envelope gambling and non-physical cyberspace,it needs to be discussed under the theory of network accomplice.That is to say,when WeChat red envelope gambling is carried out in the virtual cyberspace,the accomplice pattern has been alienated under the cyberspace,which has caused controversy in the judicial practice of the accomplice issue of WeChat red envelope gambling participants.It is necessary to explore this issue in order to solve a series of problems in judicial practice.Based on this,this paper explores the issue of accomplice in WeChat red envelope gambling participants.The whole issue is divided into four parts:The first part is the premise to clarify:the alienation performance of the accomplice form in cyberspace.WeChat red envelope gambling is carried out in a non-physical cyberspace,and cyberspace is based on its own unique characteristics,resulting in the complication of accomplice patterns in cyberspace,mainly alienated criminal subjects,structural forms,behavioral components,and weakening.Intentional contact and several other aspects.The second part is the typical form of WeChat red envelope gambling,participant type combing and judicial empirical analysis.The author summarizes the typical form of WeChat red envelope gambling in the form of facts,and sorts out the types of participants,which can be roughly divided into shareholders,group owners,administrators and other players.By comparing and analyzing several representative referee documents and cases,the author finds that there are mainly several problems in judicial practice.First,there is controversy over the idiots and accomplices of WeChat red envelope gambling participants.Second,there are many people involved in WeChat red gambling,such as gamblers and employed staff.Under the current accomplice system,these personnel are in judicial practice.Does it constitute an accomplice?How to characterize the type of accomplice?This has become a point of dispute and difficulty identified by the court.The third part is the identification of the type of accomplice in WeChat red envelope gambling.First of all,the group owner and the manager control the entire gambling process and play a central role,which should be recognized as an organizational crime.Secondly,the shareholders have subjectively instigated intentions and implemented instigations,who should be identified as an instigator.Thirdly,for the subcontractors employed by the group owner,their behavior is an indispensable part of the whole gambling activity and should be considered as a perpetrator.There is also a conspiracy with the group owner to form a WeChat group to implement the red envelope.The behavior of this type of contractor in the gambling process and other implementation behaviors work together to promote a general hazard result,which should also be considered as implementation.Finally,in the case where the shareholders and the group owner are not the same person,if the shareholders and the group owner have prior contact,subjectively,the psychological expectation of providing high-profit funds with illegal crimes,objectively providing material assistance for gambling crimes,in line with the main principle of objective consistency should be identified as a helper.The fourth part is the opinion of the WeChat red envelope gambling participant and the accomplice.The author believes that the offender,the accomplice,the principal offender and the accomplice are not one-to-one correspondence.The group owner who establishes the WeChat red envelope gambling group should be identified as the principal offender;for the group administrator,whether or not they are employed by the group owner,the act of committing crimes against the crime activities have played a crucial role and should be identified as the main offender;for shareholders,the discussion here is that the shareholders and the owners are not the same person.In this case,they provide funds for establishing a "gaming place" for gambling.Agents,not easy to identify as an accomplice.For special subcontractors,it should be identified as the main offender.The employed agent should be considered an accomplice.