A Study On The Boundary Between Compensatory Rights Protection Behavior And The Crime Of Extortion

In recent years,in the field of consumer disputes such as consumer disputes,spiritual damages related to gender relations,and claims for compensation,the rights defenders often adopt rights-protection methods with the nature of "threat or threat"to claim their property rights in disputes.Or property interests.On the one hand,the irrationality of the claimant's claim amount and the excessive act of safeguarding the rights,the way of defending its rights has the appearance of extortion and extortion,and then the procuratorate appeals to the court by extortion;on the other hand,because of China The criminal law provisions adopt the simple criminal law model for extortion and extortion.The relevant judicial interpretations avoid the avoidance of the elements of extortion and extortment,which leads to the qualitative differentiation of such marginal cases in judicial practice,thus making claims-type activism and extortion.The line of blackmail is blurred.It is inevitable that there is a preconceived and subjective conviction for the definition of such private rights activism by "excessive rights activism".Such behaviors have the characteristics of causality,the objective authenticity of the result of damage to interests,the over-emphasis of the means of safeguarding rights,and the imbalance of the amount of claims.They are collectively referred to as"compensation-type rights activism" and are intended to be objective from the meso level.Defining the nature of such acts,thus avoiding the assumption of "sin" or"non-sin" in the formulation.In addition,the claim-type activism is a category of private relief.The boundary between the nature of claims-based rights activism and extortion should be based on the level of private relief.The boundary standard between the claim-type rights act and the extortion crime actually depends on the normative interpretation of the elements of the subjective and objective aspects of extortion.In terms of objective constituent elements,it mainly involves two aspects:First,whether the rights defending body adopts the threatening nature of the means of defending the rights to make claims,whether it has the normative meaning in the criminal law sense;second,whether the rights defending means adopted by the rights defending body can be Make the other party feel fear inside.In terms of subjective constituent elements,the main connotation of the content of illegal possession should be interpreted.Secondly,it should be judged whether the high claim of the rights defending entity means that the defending entity has the purpose of illegally possessing other people's property.If the activist's means of activism with coercive nature in the claim process does not have the normative meaning in the criminal law sense,even if the means of coercive nature is used to claim property from others,the act of defending rights does not meet the crime of extortion.The objective constituent elements;the high-claims behavior of the rights defending body does not represent the subjective existence of the illegal possession of the other party's property,that is,the high compensation and the illegal possession purposes are not equivalent.This should not be subject to legal evaluation of extortion.In judicial practice,for those acts of private rights protection that have clearly violated the law and have not yet constituted a crime,the civil,economic,administrative and other departmental laws should first be used for legal evaluation,thus maintaining the spirit of modesty.After all,in the entire legal system,criminal law has the nature of supplementary law,and it is the guarantee law for the smooth implementation of other departmental laws.The relevant elements of the claim-type activism and the extortion crime should be analyzed by the norm of criminal law,and supplemented by the theory of social equivalence,so that the criminal law can be carried out from the path of combining the equivalent of the element with the social equivalent.Substantial interpretation.In this way,a new judicial interpretation of the essence of extortion and extortion can be carried out to accurately determine the boundary between claims-based rights activism and extortion.