Legislative Reconstruction Of Crime Of False Opening Of Special Invoice For Value-added Tax

The crime of falsely issuing special VAT invoices is the crime with the highest crime rate among tax crimes.Since the start of the pilot reform of the camp reform in2012,false crimes have greatly increased.Criminals have smelled the opportunity to use the false value-added tax invoices to deduct more taxes or to make money by buying and selling invoices.Therefore,false crimes are judicial.Also widely used.The application of false crimes has been controversial in the theoretical and practical circles.The fundamental reason is that the basic constituent elements are vague and unclear.Scholars have published articles over the years to explain the idea of false crime identification,such as the identification of behavioral crimes,purpose crimes,result crimes,and dangerous crimes,to provide academic support for the application of false crimes,but no theory can solve the justice The application of the dispute is so far that there is no uniform standard for determination.This is a legislative defect.Even if it is explained that it does not violate the principle of criminal punishment,it cannot satisfy the application of false crimes.Therefore,it is necessary to find a solution from the source of legislation and reconstruct the false crime to meet the applicable problems today.The following describes the current situation of false crimes from various angles.In terms of legislation and interpretation,fictitious crime was first stipulated in a separate criminal law in 1995,and was included in the criminal code in 1997.The amendment(VIII)to the criminal law in 2011 deleted the penalty setting that the highest penalty is death penalty.In terms of the standard of conviction and sentencing,the judicial interpretation on the standard of conviction and sentencing was issued in1996,which is no longer applicable in 2018,referring to the interpretation of the crime of cheating export tax rebate.In terms of the number of cases,the development of external factors such as policy,economy,science and technology also affects the occurrence of crimes at all times,which is particularly significant in the case of open crime.Affected by the factors such as replacing business tax with value-added tax,the number of cases of open crime has increased sharply compared with the previous one,especially in the past five years,the number of cases has reached thousands every year,which is the highest crime rate in economic crime The crime of.In order to regulate this kind of crime,the state has also launched special actions,focusing on combating the crime of falsely issuing invoices.On the other hand,in the identification of crime,any crime requires a unified identification standard.However,due to the defects of its own legislation,the elements of an open crime are not clear.There is no clear constituent elements will also affect the fairness and justice of crime identification.For such a high number of cases of open crime,it is easier to produce the same situation of cases but have different judgment results.In practice,the legislative defects of the fictitious crime are reflected in many controversies on the identification of nature and amount.For example,in the identification of nature,there are different opinions on which kind of open act should be identified as a crime and which kind of act should not be identified as a crime.There are different opinions on how to identify a certain act according to the theory of behavior crime,and how to identify it according to the theory of purpose crime,result crime and danger crime.Also like in the determination of the false amount,how to determine the false amount for others and for oneself,are these two behaviors the same kind of several crimes? If there are several crimes of the same kind,should the false amount be added up accumulatively,or choose a heavy amount,or according to the output tax,or according to the input tax,or through the analysis of specific circumstances? It’s a different story.How to find a false crime? From a legislative point of view,if we can supplement the constituent elements according to the theory of the theoretical world,can we resolve the dispute? But after doing a feasibility analysis after making up,the result is still negative,and the scope of punishment for behavioral offenders is too large;the target offenders cannot explain all types of open behaviors,and the scope is too narrow;the results offenders say that the results are important,but they are ignored Unintentional mis-opening,staggering,and other false openings;dangerous offenders say that the system is not in line with China’s dangerous offenders system,and due to the reform of the tax system,the danger of national tax losses caused by special VAT invoices has been expanded.In short,it is no longer feasible to complement the theory.In order to resolve the dispute over the application of false crimes,through various considerations,the legislative reconstruction of false crimes is taken from the perspective of moderation in criminal law.The constitutional elements are clearly defined,false crimes are set as basic and aggravated crimes,and the amount standard is used as legal Constitutes,raises the standard of conviction,reduces the minimumsentencing,and deletes the type of behavior that introduces others.The establishment of a basic offense must have a deliberate act,a delusional act,and an amount of false conviction that meets the conviction standard.Aggravated crime requires a deliberate act,a delusional act,a tax deception purpose,tax deception,and fraud that meets the conviction standard Amount.The determination of the amount of false opening,especially for others and for themselves,should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.If there is a causal relationship as a standard,if it is to fill the deficit for others,the output and input are equal.In the case of losses that do not result in national taxes,they should not be calculated cumulatively.If they are not equal,they should be calculated cumulatively.