| Empirical research is an important means of verifying theoretical results,summarizing practical laws and digging out practical problems.Through mufti-dimensional and multi-method statistical analysis of a large sample,it can effectively reflect the existing problems of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits in the field of judicial practice,and carry out targeted reasons for deliberation and give reasonable improvements.Suggest.This article is divided into three parts,excluding the foreword and conclusion,totaling about 52,000 words.The first part is an empirical study on the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.In terms of conviction,the four elements of subject,object,objective and subjective are studied by the method of frequency analysis.In terms of sentencing,the logarithmic linear regression and binary logistic regression methods are used to study the factors that affect the length of imprisonment and the factors that affect the application of probation.The second part is the main conclusion and reason analysis of the empirical research.First,in practice,the subjective aspects of the crime are too underestimated,and the criminal intention is rarely mentioned,and the purpose of the crime is almost only considered when the distinction between this crime and the crime of fundraising fraud is faced.The main reason is that there is insufficient understanding of the importance of subjective aspects in practice,passive review,and no review if there is no defense.Second,as a legal offender,there is a lack of substantive review of the illegality of this crime in practice.The sentence only simply invoked the criminal law,and did not specify what kind of financial regulation the act violated.The main reason is that there are too many blank parts in the relevant judicial standards of this crime,and administrative review is not required as a guide,which makes illegal review a mere formality.Third,the investigation of openness and speciality is not comprehensive and detailed,and the number and nature of the behavior objects are not fully judged.The number of objects is in an embarrassing position of dispensable and the nature of the objects is usually too strict.The main reason is that the conviction requirement and the conviction standard of this crime are unreasonable.Under the premise that the four conviction requirements need to be met at the same time,the three criteria for judging conviction only need to choose one of the three,which makes it social and open.The standard of the number of subjects of predominance is largely ignored.Fourth,the application of incriminating standards is extremely unbalanced.In practice,there is an obvious tendency for the amount of money involved,too much attention is paid to the amount of money involved,and there is a serious lack of examination of the number of people and losses.On the one hand,the reason is the improper connection between judicial standards.On the other hand,it is also due to the unclear legal benefits of the crime.It is impossible to clearly locate the number of targets and cause losses from the legal benefits of the two standards for the conviction and sentencing of the crime.Fifth,in terms of the cost of crimes,in practice,the penalties for those who commit light crimes are heavier,and those who commit serious crimes are less punished.The marginal cost of crimes decreases sharply with the increase in the amount of money.The main reason is that before the publication of the "Eleventh Amendment to the Criminal Law",the sentencing space for this crime was too narrow relative to the scope of the amount,number,loss and other indicators involved.The sentencing circumstances available for investigation were insufficient,and the facts of the crime could not be significantly different.A good balance is achieved in a large number of cases.Sixth,the exemption clause of this crime is difficult to apply in practice,and it is a mere zombie clause.The main reason is that the exemption clauses are too strict.On the one hand,the use of funds is strictly controlled in practice.On the other hand,it is also subject to the rigid conditions for returning all funds.In reality,it is difficult to meet the above conditions at the same time.The third part is to improve the conviction and sentencing of this crime.The first is to follow the requirements of the modest and restrained nature of the criminal law,conduct a comprehensive inspection of the four elements of crime,and pay attention to the important significance of criminal intention and criminal purpose in the determination of this crime.Second,treat the object of this crime as a complex object,establish the financing order and the property rights of investors,in order to enhance the comprehensive investigation of the standard of the crime in practice.Third,further clarify the qualitative basis for the illegality of this crime,reduce the blank space in the regulations,and improve the pr-examination system for administrative illegality.Fourth,simplify and merge the conviction criteria for this crime,remove one item of losses caused,and combine the amount involved with the number of targets,so that a single criterion shall not be convicted.Fifth,the circumstances of the aggravated punishment of this crime are further clarified,and the circumstances of the serious and particularly serious circumstances of this crime are detailed by the circumstances of the property loss and personal injury caused by the crime.Sixth,reconstruct the reduction and exemption standards for this crime.Under the premise of delimiting the scope of reduction and exemption,the conditions for reduction and exemption should be appropriately lowered and the circumstances that are not considered crimes should be refined. |
