發(fā)布時間：2018-04-05 12:52

  本文選題：票據(jù)偽造　切入點：出票偽造　出處：《吉林大學》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：票據(jù)是最早產生、最典型的有價證券，享有“有價證券之父”的美譽。自從票據(jù)產生以來，它在加快商品經濟的發(fā)展及推動大規(guī)模的交易方面發(fā)揮了重要的作用。票據(jù)作為商業(yè)信用的載體，對于經濟生活的發(fā)展起著至關重要的作用，甚至被稱為“商業(yè)貨幣”。因為具有極強的流通性，票據(jù)已經成為當今經濟生活中不可缺少的最佳的信用支付工具。 然而，我們在充分認識票據(jù)對于市場經濟發(fā)展的重要作用的同時，也應該注意到票據(jù)偽造行為也隨之發(fā)生，利用偽造的票據(jù)進行的犯罪行為也在逐步增加。這不僅會對票據(jù)關系人的權利造成侵害，而且還會對市場經濟的發(fā)展和金融秩序的穩(wěn)定造成嚴重的阻礙。因此，世界各國都從立法層面對票據(jù)偽造行為進行了規(guī)制。 本文在明確票據(jù)偽造法律內涵的基礎上，在比較法的視野下，詳細探討了當今兩大票據(jù)法體系國家對票據(jù)偽造法律責任及票據(jù)偽造風險責任分擔的問題。在此基礎上，，筆者對我國現(xiàn)行的票據(jù)偽造的相關立法規(guī)定進行了評析。在借鑒國外先進立法經驗的同時，針對我國票據(jù)偽造責任及風險責任的分擔提出立法完善建議。 除緒論和結語外，本文主體部分分為五章。 第一章，票據(jù)偽造的一般理論。本章首先探討了票據(jù)偽造的法律內涵及其與相關概念的外延區(qū)分。關于票據(jù)偽造的法律內涵，日內瓦票據(jù)法體系和英美票據(jù)法體系的定義不完全相同，在我國票據(jù)立法中也沒有明確的定義。票據(jù)偽造的法律內涵只是存在于學理研究中。筆者認為，票據(jù)偽造應該是指偽造他人簽章、簽名而進行的出票偽造和票據(jù)上簽名的偽造。包括出票偽造和輔助票據(jù)行為的偽造。票據(jù)偽造最本質的特點應該是對票據(jù)簽章的偽造。在明確了票據(jù)偽造法律內涵的基礎上，本章還探討了票據(jù)偽造與相關概念的外延區(qū)分。包括票據(jù)偽造與票據(jù)行為的無權代理、票據(jù)行為的代行、票據(jù)變造以及印章盜用等行為的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別。從而得出票據(jù)偽造行為從性質上看，它不是票據(jù)行為，而是一種特殊的民事侵權行為。基于此，總結出票據(jù)偽造行為的認定和構成要件。 第二章，票據(jù)偽造法律關系主體的法律責任承擔。本章在明晰了票據(jù)偽造法律關系中法律主體的基礎上，探討了不同主體在票據(jù)偽造行為發(fā)生后，法律責任歸屬和承擔的問題。其中重點探討了票據(jù)偽造中，偽造人、被偽造人和付款人法律責任的承擔問題。 第三章，票據(jù)偽造風險責任承擔比較研究。雖然在票據(jù)偽造的情況下，持票人、付款人、被偽造人和真正簽章人都有權利最終對票據(jù)偽造行為人請求損害賠償，但是當偽造人逃跑或者無力清償時，這種請求權已經難以實現(xiàn)保護他們權利的作用。此時就會產生票據(jù)偽造風險責任分擔的問題。本章中，筆者通過比較分析的研究方法，探討了日內瓦票據(jù)法系和英美票據(jù)法系在票據(jù)偽造發(fā)生后風險責任承擔及分擔上的不同規(guī)定。在出票偽造的風險責任承擔問題上，英美法和大陸法國家所持的主要態(tài)度是一致的，即都應該由付款人承擔出票偽造所導致的票據(jù)偽造風險責任。只是在付款人發(fā)生錯誤付款時，在符合何種條件下，才可以轉嫁這種風險責任的規(guī)定上存在見解不同。大陸法系通過契約的方式，而英美法系通過“禁反言（Estopoel）原則”、“追認（Ratification）”和“被偽造人（出票人）的過失”作為付款人承擔風險責任的例外。但是在規(guī)定背書偽造的風險責任承擔問題上，兩大法系的態(tài)度迥異。其分歧的關鍵點在于，偽造背書可否造成背書連續(xù)的中斷以及即使背書形式連續(xù)的情況下，票據(jù)權利可否善意取得。 第四章，票據(jù)偽造追認對法律風險承擔的影響。本章也是論文的創(chuàng)新點。本章探討了在特殊的情況下,被偽造人可能出于一定原因的考慮，即使在明知自己的票據(jù)簽名被偽造的情況下，被偽造人也會對偽造的簽名予以承認，從而使復雜的票據(jù)偽造法律關系發(fā)生變化。在英美法系國家對于偽造的票據(jù)可以追認持肯定的態(tài)度。然而在大陸法系國家，一般情況下認為票據(jù)偽造行為不能夠進行追認。在我國票據(jù)立法中，對票據(jù)偽造能否進行追認問題沒有進行明確的立法規(guī)定。筆者主張票據(jù)偽造的行為在只對被偽造人的利益造成侵害的時候，是可以進行追認的。票據(jù)偽造追認是一種具有積極形成權性質的行為。票據(jù)偽造的追認是否具有溯及力，不能一概而論，應該根據(jù)偽造行為的違法性和被偽造人主觀上對于偽造人責任追究的意愿而有所區(qū)別。在本章的最后一部分，筆者探討了票據(jù)偽造追認對于相關當事人法律責任及風險責任歸屬的影響。 第五章，我國票據(jù)偽造風險責任承擔的立法現(xiàn)狀與完善。目前，我國票據(jù)偽造風險分擔方面主要適用的法律法規(guī)有《中華人民共和國票據(jù)法》、中國人民銀行《支付結算辦法》、《票據(jù)管理實施辦法》及《最高人民法院關于審理票據(jù)糾紛案件若干問題的規(guī)定》。這些法律法規(guī)構成了我國處理票據(jù)偽造風險責任分擔的框架。但是，在我國票據(jù)立法中并沒有區(qū)分出票偽造和背書偽造的情形。而且我國現(xiàn)階段的票據(jù)立法在付款人的付款審查義務的規(guī)定上，在持票人承擔票據(jù)偽造風險責任上以及對于被偽造人的保護上都存在著立法的缺陷。針對這些立法缺陷，筆者在本章的最后，建議在我國今后關于票據(jù)偽造的相關立法中，應該借鑒國外的先進經驗，完善我國的立法規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The bill is the earliest and most typical securities, enjoy "securities" the father of the world. Since the bill has been produced, it has played an important role in accelerating the development of commodity economy and promote trade large scale. As a carrier of commercial credit notes, for the development of economy life is crucial the effect is even called "commercial currency". Because of its strong negotiability, the bill has become indispensable in today's economic life in the best credit payment instruments.
However, we fully recognize the important role of bill for the development of the market economy at the same time, should also pay attention to the forgery of bills behavior also occurred, criminal acts using forged bills has gradually increased. It will not only for human rights violations caused by bill relation, but also to the development of market economy and financial order cause serious obstacles. Therefore, all countries in the world from the legislative level of bill forgery conduct regulation.
Based in the clear notes forged legal connotation, under the view of comparative method, discussed in detail the two bill systems of forgery of bill forgery liability and responsibility and risk sharing problems. On this basis, the author gives an analysis on China's current forged notes. In reference to the provisions of relevant legislation advanced foreign legislative experience at the same time, to put forward legislative proposals to perfect our shared responsibility and risk responsibility of forgery.
In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the main part of this article is divided into five chapters.
The first chapter, the general theory of bill forgery. This chapter first discusses the extension of the forged negotiable instruments legal connotation and the distinction between related concepts. On the legal connotation of forgery, definition of Geneva bill law system and Anglo American negotiable instrument law system is not exactly the same, there is no clear definition in our bill legislation of bill forgery. The legal connotation existed only in theory research. The author believes that the forgery should be forged signature forgery of others, the signature and forgery and forgery bill. Including forgery and auxiliary bill forgery behavior. The most essential characteristics should be forged on the negotiable instrument. In the clear basis the legal connotation of the forged negotiable instruments, this chapter also discusses the extension of bill forgery and the distinction between the concepts. Including unauthorized agency and negotiable instruments act bill forgery, Bill behavior of such tickets According to the relationship and difference between alteration and seal stealing, it is concluded that bill forgery is not a note act, but a special civil tort. Based on this, we conclude the identification and constitutive requirements of bill forgery.
The second chapter, the legal liability subject of legal relation of bill forgery bear. In this chapter clarifies the legal subject in the legal relationship of bill forgery based on the discussion of bill forgery behavior occurred in different subjects, the legal liability and bear the problem. We discuss the forgery, forgery, forgery bear people the drawee and legal liability.
The third chapter, forgery risk responsibility undertakes comparative study. Although in the case of forgery of bill, the holder, the drawee is forged and real people have the right to the final signature of bill forgery behavior damages, but when people run away or unable to repay the forgery, this claim has been difficult to achieve the protection of their rights role. This will produce forgery risk shared responsibility. In this chapter, the author through the method of comparative analysis, discusses the Geneva bill law system and the Anglo American law system in the bill forgery after the occurrence of risk liability and the sharing of the different provisions. Bear at a forged risk liability, mainly Anglo American attitude law and civil law countries hold is consistent, namely should undertake by the payer forgery caused by forgery risk liability. Only in the payer 'wrong Payment by mistake, in line with the conditions under which it can exist on the specified risk responsibility on different views. The continental law system through the contract, and the Anglo American law system by estoppel (Estopoel) principle "," ratification (Ratification) "and" forged person (drawer) as the fault "the payer risk liability exception. But in the provisions of forged endorsement of the risk of liability issues, two legal systems of different attitude. The key point lies in the differences, can cause the forged endorsement endorsement and endorsement form of continuous interruption even continuous case, whether bona fide acquisition bill rights.
The fourth chapter of the bill forgery recognition of legal risk. This chapter is the innovation of this paper. This chapter discusses the special circumstances, may be forged for certain reasons, even in knowing that they are the endorsement forgery case, forged person will also be admitted to fake the signature, so that the complex forgery legal relationship change. In the countries of Anglo American law system for counterfeit notes can be ratified by the positive attitude. However, in civil law countries, generally think that counterfeit bills can not be ratified. Behavior in China's negotiable instruments in the legislation of bill forgery can not ratify legislation clear. The author argues that the behavior in the forged bill only to infringe upon the interests of the people to be forged, can be ratified. The bill forgery recognition is a kind of active form As the nature of the right to act. If the bill forgery ratification has retroactive effect, can not be generalized, should be based on counterfeit illegal behavior and forgery of subjective responsibility for forged person will differ. In the last part of this chapter, the author discusses the influence of bill forgery for ratification of legal liability and related parties the risk of responsibility.
The fifth chapter, China's legislative status and improvement of bill forgery risk liability. At present, there are laws and regulations > < People's Republic of China negotiable instrument forgery in China mainly for risk sharing, the people's bank payment and settlement Chinese < > >, < < measures for the implementation of administration of negotiable instruments and provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the trial of disputes over negotiable instruments the case. These laws and regulations constitute the framework of responsibility and risk sharing forged bill processing in China. However, in China's negotiable instruments legislation does not distinguish forgery and endorsement forgery case. And the provisions of our present bill legislation on the obligation of payment in the review, the holder of bill forgery the risk of responsibility for the protection of people and forgery are the defect of legislation. According to these legislative defects, the author at the end of this chapter, suggestions on the future in China In the relevant legislation of bill forgery, we should draw on the advanced experience of foreign countries and improve the legislative provisions of our country.

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D922.287

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 王笑冉;“石家莊某公司訴辛集某公司票據(jù)追索權糾紛案”相關法律問題分析[D];河北經貿大學;2014年

本文編號：1714805