数字人民币视域下的货币犯罪

数字人民币具备不同于私人数字货币、人民币现金和移动支付的诸多特性。我国货币犯罪案件的数量并未因移动支付的广泛运用而降低，相反近年来在整体上呈上升趋势，导致货币犯罪的罪名在整体上的立法和适用价值进一步增加。针对数字人民币，货币犯罪的变革可采用立法修改、刑法解释和理论更新相结合的方案，具体为：停止适用变造货币罪，并根据伪造货币罪来认定变造数字人民币行为；修改关于伪造货币罪的低位阶规范性文件并重新解释相关构成要件要素。适用该罪时应注意：伪造货币罪是行为犯，无须发生进入流通、完成支付等结果即可既遂，这适用于数字人民币。在数字人民币的场合，应在该罪的主观构成要件要素中保留而非删除流通的目的。应对伪造数字人民币的常业犯从重处罚；停止适用持有假币罪和运输假币罪，对持有和运输假数字人民币行为出罪；购买假币罪、出售假币罪和使用假币罪可适用于数字人民币，但应注意：购买假币罪的主观构成要件要素中要有流通的目的，而出售假币罪的主观构成要件要素中无须有该目的。对使用假币罪而言，判断某种行为是否属于使用时，必须紧紧围绕"进入流通"来判断。一切导致假币进入流通的行为方式，包括支付对价、偿还债务、作为保证金提供给他人、作为注册资本验资、交换、赠与、存入金融机构、兑换真币等均属于使用，但单纯出示、委托保管不属于使用。判断假数字人民币是否进入流通时，不应使用与有体物紧密相关的"占有"一词，而应使用抽象意义更强的"支配"一词，具体而言：当他人从行为人处以电子支付方式取得对该假币的支配或破解了该假币的加密数据，并能对其随意支配时，该假币则进入了流通。行为人使用假数字人民币的行为表面上看同时构成使用假币罪和诈骗罪时，二罪的关系不是法条竞合而是想象竞合。根据想象竞合犯从一重罪处断的原则，应当将行为人的行为认定为法定刑较重的使用假币罪。

The currency crimes in the horizon of e-CNY

E-CNY is distinct from private digital currency, Chinese Yuan in cash and mobile payment with many characteristics. The amount of cases about currency crimes in China has not decreased with the extensive usage of mobile payment. Conversely, it has a tendency of rising these years on the whole. The situation resulted in the increase of the legislative and applicative values of the currency crimes on the whole. Referring to e-CNY, we could adopt a reform scheme about the currency crimes which is the combination of legislative amendment, interpretation of criminal law and theory innovation. It concretely includes the following ways:canceling the application of altering currency crime and coping with the conduct of altering e-CNY in terms of counterfeiting currency crime; revising related low-rank normative documents about counterfeiting currency crime and newly interpreting related constitutive elements. When this crime is applied, we should note that counterfeiting currency crime is a conduct crime, whose accomplished situation does not require a result such as entry into circulation or completion of payment, and this applies to e-CNY. In the case of e-CNY, the purpose of circulation should be retained rather than removed from the subjective constituent elements of the crime. Severer penalties should be imposed on professional offender of counterfeiting e-CNY; the application of holding fake currency crime and transporting fake currency crime should be canceled, and the conducts of holding and transporting fake e-CNY should be decriminalized; buying fake currency crime, selling fake currency crime and using fake currency crime could be applied to e-CNY. However, we should note that the subjective constituent elements of purchasing counterfeit currency crime requires the purpose of circulation, whereas the subjective constituent elements of selling counterfeit currency crime does not require such a purpose. In the case of using counterfeit currency crime, the judgement of whether a certain conduct is using must be based closely on "entering into circulation". All conduct forms leading to the entry into circulation of counterfeit currency, including payment of consideration, repayment of debts, provision to others as a deposit, verification of registered capital, exchange, gift, deposit in a financial institution, exchange for real currency, etc., are considered to be using, but mere presentation and entrustment for safekeeping are not considered to be using. While judging whether fake e-CNY is in circulation, the term "possession" which is closely related to tangible objects should not be used, but the term "domination" which has a stronger abstract meaning should be used. Specifically, when another person obtains dominion over counterfeit currency from a conductor by means of electronic payment or decrypts the encrypted data of counterfeit currency and is able to dominate it at will, the counterfeit currency enters into circulation. When the conduct of using fake e-CNY of a conductor ostensibly constitutes both using fake currency crime and the fraud crime, the relationship between the two crimes is not coincidence of articles but imaginative concurrence. In accordance with the principle that imaginative concurrence should be sentenced on the basis of the most serious crime, the conduct''s conduct should be deemed to be using counterfeit currency crime which has a severer statutory penalty.