内容提要：受制于向银行等金融机构融资的种种条件限制，中小企业通过民间融资筹集生存和发展的资金非常普遍。但是按照2010年《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》，集资人即便将筹集的资金用于合法生产经营活动，依然触碰到非法吸收公众存款罪的定罪红线。对于集资人筹资用于合法生产经营活动的行为是否构成非法吸收公众存款罪，理论界和实务界存在三种不同看法，其主流是根据行为造成的后果选择性的定罪处罚。笔者认为，集资人筹资用于合法生产经营活动有其存在的合理性，不符合非法吸收公众存款罪的立法打击目的，对于该类集资行为不应作为犯罪处理。

关键词：非法吸收公众存款  民间借贷  金融

一、问题的提出

1997年公布的《中华人民共和国刑法》176条设立了“非法吸收公众存款罪”，规定“非法吸收公众存款或者变相吸收公众存款，扰乱金融秩序的”，以非法吸收公众存款罪定罪量刑。当前，民间融资非常活跃，个人、企业通过民间融资渠道而非正规金融融资渠道筹集资金的现象非常普遍。这是因为目前我们国家金融体系中融资体制不够健全，融资渠道不够通畅，企业尤其是中小型民营企业很难从银行等金融机构及时、合法取得企业发展所需的资金。出于生存和发展的考虑，大量的企业转向寻求民间资本支持，通过民间借贷、入会等方式，以高于银行利率为代价，向社会公众吸收资金用于企业合法生产经营活动。在民营经济高度发达的沿海地区，比如浙江，这类现象尤为突出。但是按照1998年国务院发布的《非法金融机构和非法金融业务活动取缔办法》，这类集资行为均属于“非法吸收公众存款”或“变相吸收公众存款”行为。根据2010年《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条确立的非法吸收公众存款罪的刑事追诉标准：“个人吸收金额20万元或者单位吸收金额100万元、个人吸存对象30人以上或者单位吸存对象150人以上、个人给存款人造成直接损失10万元或者单位给存款人造成直接损失50万元”，这类民间融资行为都可以非法吸收公众存款罪定罪处理。对于这类集资用于合法生产经营活动行为究竟如何看待，是统统处以刑罚，还是承认其合法性，还是有区别地追究集资人刑事责任，本文将对此展开探讨。

二、合法使用集资款罪与非罪的不种观点

（一）三种不同观点

集资人向社会公众吸收资金用于合法生产经营活动，其客观行为表现完全符合非法吸收公众存款罪的形式要件，那么对此应否按照非法吸收公众存款罪定罪处理，理论界和实务界存在较大争议，主要观点有三种：

1．第一种观点认为：集资人吸收公众资金行为只要符合《非法金融机构和非法金融业务活动取缔办法》，其行为性质即属于非法吸收公众存款行为，只要符合《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条确定的非法吸收公众存款罪立案追诉标准之一，就应该追究刑事责任。

2．第二种观点认为：非法吸收公众存款罪是法理上的目的犯，集资人吸收公众存款，如果其行为目的是将吸收的存款款项用于资本经营、货币经营，从事与金融机构相同或相似的发放贷款、金融担保、资金拆借等行为，赚取利息差，那么行为人的吸储行为构成非法吸收公众存款罪，否则不具备该目的的吸储行为不构成非法吸收公众存款罪。因此集资人吸收资金用于合法生产经营活动，不构成非法吸收公众存款罪。

3．第三种观点认为：集资人吸收公众存款用于合法经营活动，虽然其外在形式符合非法吸收公众存款罪的客观要件，但考虑到这种集资行为在一定程度上缓解了企业生产经营的资金压力，有利于社会经济发展，具有良好的经济效果和社会效果，所以只要集资人没有给存款人造成经济损失，应当认为情节显著轻微，不作为非法吸收公众存款罪犯罪处理。但如果集资人的行为给存款人造成较大经济损失，其行为即具备了相当的社会危害性，不追究其刑事责任不利于社会稳定，应当按照非法吸收公众存款罪追究集资人刑事责任。《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》认为“（吸收的资金）主要用于正常的生产经营活动，能够及时清退所吸收资金的，可以免予刑事处罚；情节显著轻微的，不作为犯罪处理”。

（二）观点评述

以上三种观点从不同角度和立场出发阐述分析集资用于合法生产经营活动行为能否构罪，笔者对于上述观点均有不同意见：

1．第一种观点没有考虑到民间融资存在的合法、合理性，容易导致入罪泛化。按照1998年《非法金融机构和非法金融活动取缔办法》，非法吸收公众存款是指，未经中国人民银行批准，向社会不特定对象吸收资金，出具凭证，承诺在一定期限内还本付息的活动；变相吸收公众存款是指，未经中国人民银行批准，不以吸收公众存款的名义，向社会不特定对象吸收资金，但承诺履行义务与吸收公众存款性质相同的活动。第一种观点认为非法吸存及变相吸存行为本身使得老百姓的储蓄在银行体系循环，削弱了银行的吸储能力和信贷扩张，影响国家货币宏观调控政策的监管和实施效果。因此其行为成立，危害结果成立，犯罪即构成。但从非法吸收公众存款罪条文本身规定来看，吸存行为以“扰乱金融秩序”为构成要件。集资人吸收公众存款用于合法生产经营活动，均足以达到“扰乱金融秩序”的效果？显然牵强。非法吸收公众存款罪“一方面总是在似是而非之间争论不休，另一方面却已经是当下金融业发案最高的一项罪名了”。第一种观点僵化理解法条，维护的是金融秩序是金融机构的垄断，这与立法和政策的鼓励民间融资规范化发展的理念也不相符，与实际脱节。

2．第二种观点理论前提是非法吸收公众存款罪属目的犯。刑法中的“目的犯”要求犯罪的主观构成必须具备特定的犯罪目的。不具备特定犯罪目的，即使客观行为符合犯罪构成，也会因其社会危险性达不到追究刑事责任的程度而不构成犯罪。根据《中华人民共和国刑法》第176条之规定：非法吸收公众存款罪是指违反国家金融管理法规非法吸收公众存款或变相吸收公众存款，扰乱金融秩序的行为。条文本身并未要求行为人具备特定行为目的，侦查机关对于主观目的的取证也存在相当大的难度。非法吸收公众存款罪侵犯的客体是国家金融秩序。即便是集资人将筹集资金用于非法目的，只要不具备扰乱金融秩序的主观目的，均可逃脱刑罚，这一观点显然不利于打击犯罪。侵犯国家金融秩序更多的因为客观行为使然。

3．第三种观点把非法吸收公众存款罪定义为“结果犯”，属于典型的“严重后果论”，其结果是入罪模糊。对于集资行为给存款人造成的损失如何定性？大量的民间借贷没有约定还款期日，根据《中华人民共和国合同法》及相关规定，出借人可以随时主张借款到期并要求立即还款。按照《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条第四款规定，只有在清退所有资金的情况下才可以免予刑罚。集资人将筹集资金投入合法的生产经营活动，资金产生效益需要长短不一的投资周期，在收益产生之前，若出借人主张还款，势必造成资金无法偿还，这类情形不应当认定为损失。据以构罪的损失的金额如何认定？是否按照《最高人民法院关于审理非法集资刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条第一款第三项确定的个人吸收资金造成直接经济损失10万元以上、单位吸收资金造成直接经济损失50万元以上，显然没有明确。以结果论罪，集资人的命运取决于投资的成败。投资成功则皆大欢喜；投资失败，则科以刑罚，落井下石，显然不合理。

三、集资用于合法的生产经营活动不构成非法吸收公众存款罪

笔者认为，集资人出于生存与发展需要筹集资金，并用于合法生产经营活动，无论能否偿还集资款，均不应当以非法吸收公众存款罪定罪处理。

（一）民间金融具有相当的合理性

资金之于企业，如同血液之于人体般重要。民间融资的活跃，暴露出金融体制资金需求和供给的失衡。大量的中小企业因为生存和发展，需要融资。但我国目前的金融体制垄断了资金正规的供给，设置的门槛阻断了中小企业的融资渠道。银行的低利率储蓄政策和CPI指数、通货膨胀率的上升导致民间资本在银行起不到保值、增值的作用，老百姓不愿意将闲置资金存入银行。这一切催生了大量的民间融资活动。对集资用于合法生产经营活动科以非法吸收公众存款罪，无异于在集资人头顶悬挂“达摩克利斯之剑”，阻断民间融资，无益于正规金融体制的改善。从“孙大午”案反映出，国家希望从法律层面对非法融资行为进行规制，但法律规制没有取得理想的效果，却出现了“打击面过宽和打击力度不足的双重感慨”。限制企业资金的来源等同于限制企业的发展，这是计划经济体制的传统顽固思维。

（二）定罪不符合非法吸收公众存款罪立法目的。

非法吸收公众存款罪设立的立法目的是禁止非金融机构用吸收来的资金进行信贷活动，禁止非金融机构从事金融活动。集资人筹集资金不是用于资本的经营而是生产的经营，合法生产经营活动是为了取得正常营业利润。金融机构的合法吸储行为，其目的是通过资金的融通，诸如放贷、授信等，获取利息差。金融机构的从事金融业务的目的与集资用于合法经营活动有明显区别。这两种逐利行为均是法律允许的，互不交叉，不应当设立不同的法律后果。

四、结尾

集资人筹资用于约定的合法生产经营用途，属于正常的民间融资行为。任何的经济活动都存在一定风险，融资双方都应当具有承担风险的心理准备。哪怕是正规体制内的金融借款，作为金融机构核心的银行也需要承担收贷不能的风险。集资人筹资后经营失败导致无法偿还，也属于正常的商业风险范畴，而非集资人主观追求的结果。这一行为虽具有社会危害性，应该承担一定的行政和民事责任，但不构成刑法上的罪名，没有侵害到保护的相关法益，根据“罪刑法定”原则，不能定罪。因此对集资用于合法生产经营活动的不应当以非法吸收公众存款罪定罪处理。

参考文献

[1]周阳、唐万新：《抑或中国的罪与罚》，《经济》，2006年第3期。

[2]俞和明：《刑法中非法集资行为－以“璞真”案和孙大午案为样本的分析》，《金融法苑》，2004年第111期。

[3]李勋文：《金融危机背景下如何处理民间融资与非法集资的界限》，《法制与社会》，2009年第22期。

Summary: Due to various restrictions on financing from banks and other financial institutions, it is very common for small and medium-sized enterprises to raise funds for survival and development through private financing. However, according to the 2010 Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising, even if fundraisers use the raised funds for legitimate production and business activities, they still encounter the red line of conviction for the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. There are three different opinions in the theoretical and practical circles on whether the behavior of fundraisers raising funds for legitimate production and business activities constitutes the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, with the mainstream being selective conviction and punishment based on the consequences caused by the behavior. The author believes that fundraising by fundraisers for legitimate production and business activities is reasonable and does not meet the legislative purpose of cracking down on the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. Such fundraising behavior should not be treated as a crime.

Keywords: illegal absorption of public deposits, private lending, finance

1. Question raising

Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the China, promulgated in 1997, established the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits, stipulating that "illegal absorption of public deposits or absorption of public deposits in disguised form disturbs the financial order", and convicted and sentenced the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits. Currently, private financing is very active, and it is common for individuals and enterprises to raise funds through private financing channels rather than formal financial financing channels. This is because the current financing system in our country's financial system is not sound enough, and financing channels are not smooth enough. It is difficult for enterprises, especially small and medium-sized private enterprises, to obtain the necessary funds for their development in a timely and legal manner from financial institutions such as banks. For the sake of survival and development, a large number of enterprises have turned to seeking support from private capital, through private lending, membership, and other means, at the cost of higher than bank interest rates, to absorb funds from the public for legitimate production and business activities. In coastal areas with highly developed private economy, such as Zhejiang, this phenomenon is particularly prominent. However, according to the "Measures for the Suppression of Illegal Financial Institutions and Illegal Financial Business Activities" issued by the State Council in 1998, such fundraising activities are classified as "illegal absorption of public deposits" or "disguised absorption of public deposits". According to Article 3 of the 2010 Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising, the criminal prosecution standards for the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits are as follows: Individuals who absorb an amount of 200000 yuan or units who absorb an amount of 1 million yuan, individuals who deposit with more than 30 people or units who deposit with more than 150 people, individuals who cause direct losses of 100000 yuan to depositors, or units who cause direct losses of 500000 yuan to depositors, can all be convicted and punished for the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. This article will explore how to view this type of fundraising used for legitimate production and business activities, whether to impose a unified punishment, recognize its legality, or hold the fundraiser criminally responsible in a differentiated manner.

2. Different viewpoints on the crime and non crime of using fundraising funds legally

(1)Three different perspectives

The objective behavior of fundraisers who absorb funds from the public for legitimate production and business activities fully meets the formal requirements of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. Therefore, there is significant controversy in the theoretical and practical fields regarding whether this should be criminalized as the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. There are three main viewpoints:

1.The first viewpoint holds that as long as the fundraiser's behavior of absorbing public funds complies with the "Measures for the Suppression of Illegal Financial Institutions and Illegal Financial Business Activities", its nature of behavior belongs to the illegal absorption of public deposits. As long as it complies with one of the prosecution standards for the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits determined in Article 3 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising", Criminal responsibility should be pursued.

2. The second viewpoint holds that the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is a crime of legal purpose. If the fundraiser absorbs public deposits and the purpose of their behavior is to use the absorbed deposits for capital and currency operations, engage in the same or similar activities as financial institutions, such as issuing loans, financial guarantees, and borrowing funds, and earn interest differences, then the behavior of the fundraiser constitutes the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, Otherwise, the act of absorbing deposits that do not have this purpose does not constitute the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. Therefore, the fundraiser's absorption of funds for legitimate production and business activities does not constitute the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits.

3.The third viewpoint holds that although the external form of the fundraiser's absorption of public deposits for legitimate business activities meets the objective requirements of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, considering that this fundraising behavior to some extent alleviates the financial pressure on enterprise production and operation, is conducive to socio-economic development, and has good economic and social effects, as long as the fundraiser does not cause economic losses to the depositor, It should be considered that the circumstances are significantly minor and not treated as a crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. But if the behavior of the fundraiser causes significant economic losses to the depositor, its behavior has considerable social harm. Not holding it criminally responsible is not conducive to social stability, and the fundraiser should be held criminally responsible according to the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits. The Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising states that "the funds (absorbed) are mainly used for normal production and business activities, and if they can be promptly refunded, they can be exempted from criminal punishment; if the circumstances are significantly minor, they shall not be treated as crimes".

(2) Comment on viewpoints

The above three viewpoints elaborate and analyze from different perspectives and positions whether fundraising for legitimate production and business activities can be criminalized. The author has different opinions on the above viewpoints:

1.The first viewpoint does not take into account the legality and rationality of the existence of private financing, which can easily lead to the generalization of criminalization. According to the 1998 Measures for the Suppression of Illegal Financial Institutions and Illegal Financial Activities, illegal absorption of public deposits refers to activities that, without the approval of the People's Bank of China, absorb funds from unspecified objects in society, provide vouchers, and promise to repay principal and interest within a certain period of time; The disguised absorption of public deposits refers to activities that, without the approval of the People's Bank of China, do not absorb funds from unspecified objects in society in the name of absorbing public deposits, but promise to fulfill obligations similar to the nature of absorbing public deposits. The first view is that illegal deposit taking and disguised deposit taking behavior itself causes the savings of the people to circulate in the banking system, weakens the bank's ability to absorb deposits and credit expansion, and affects the regulatory and implementation effects of the national monetary macro control policies. Therefore, if their behavior is established, the harmful consequences are established, and the crime is constituted. However, from the textual provisions of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, the act of absorbing deposits is composed of "disrupting financial order". Is it sufficient for fundraisers to absorb public deposits for legitimate production and business activities to achieve the effect of "disrupting financial order"? Obviously farfetched. The crime of illegally absorbing public deposits "is always debated on the one hand, but on the other hand, it is already the highest crime in the current financial industry. The first viewpoint is a rigid understanding of legal provisions, which maintains that financial order is a monopoly of financial institutions. This is also inconsistent with the concept of encouraging the standardized development of private financing in legislation and policies, and is disconnected from reality.

2.The theoretical premise of the second viewpoint is that the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is a purposeful crime. The "intentional crime" in criminal law requires that the subjective composition of a crime must have a specific criminal purpose. Without a specific criminal purpose, even if the objective behavior meets the criminal constitution, it will not constitute a crime due to its social danger not reaching the level of criminal responsibility. According to Article 176 of the Criminal Law of the China, the crime of illegal absorption of public deposits refers to the act of illegal absorption of public deposits or absorption of public deposits in a disguised form in violation of national financial regulations, which disturbs the financial order. The article itself does not require the perpetrator to have a specific purpose, and there is also considerable difficulty for investigative agencies to obtain evidence for subjective purposes. The object of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is the national financial order. Even if fundraisers use the funds for illegal purposes, as long as they do not have a subjective purpose of disrupting financial order, they can escape punishment, which is clearly not conducive to combating crime. Violations of the national financial order are more often caused by objective behavior.

3.The third viewpoint defines the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits as a "consequential offense", which belongs to the typical "serious consequences theory", and the result is that the offense is ambiguous. How to characterize the losses caused to depositors by fundraising activities? A large number of private loans have no agreed repayment date. According to the Contract Law of the China and relevant regulations, the lender can claim the loan is due at any time and demand immediate repayment. According to Article 3 (4) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising, punishment can only be exempted if all funds are cleared. The fundraiser will raise funds to invest in legitimate production and operation activities, and generating benefits requires varying investment cycles. If the lender claims repayment before the income is generated, it will inevitably cause the funds to be unable to be repaid, and such situations should not be recognized as losses. How to determine the amount of losses based on the crime? Whether it is determined in accordance with Article 3, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Criminal Cases of Illegal Fundraising that individuals absorb funds and cause direct economic losses of more than 100000 yuan and units absorb funds and cause direct economic losses of more than 500000 yuan is clearly not clear. The fate of the fundraiser depends on the success or failure of the investment, as judged by the outcome. Success in investment brings joy to everyone; If the investment fails, the punishment will be imposed, and it is obviously unreasonable to throw stones in the well.

3. Raising funds for legitimate production and business activities does not constitute the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits

The author believes that fundraisers who raise funds for survival and development needs and use them for legitimate production and business activities should not be convicted of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits, regardless of whether they can repay the funds raised.

(1)Private finance has considerable rationality

Funds are as important to enterprises as blood is to the human body. The active private financing has exposed the imbalance between the demand and supply of funds in the financial system. A large number of small and medium-sized enterprises need financing for survival and development. But the current financial system in our country monopolizes the formal supply of funds, and the threshold set blocks the financing channels of small and medium-sized enterprises. The low interest rate savings policy of banks and the rise in CPI index and inflation rate have led to the inability of private capital to maintain and increase value in banks, and the unwillingness of people to deposit idle funds in banks. All of this has given rise to a large number of private financing activities. The crime of illegally absorbing public deposits against the section of raising funds for legal production and operation activities is tantamount to hanging the "Sword of Damocles" on the head of the fund raiser to block private financing, which is not conducive to the improvement of the formal financial system. The case of "Sun Dawu" reflects that the state hopes to regulate illegal financing from the legal level, but the legal regulation has not achieved the desired effect, but there has been a double emotion of "too wide scope of attack and insufficient intensity of attack". Restricting the source of corporate funds is equivalent to restricting the development of enterprises, which is the traditional stubborn thinking of the planned economy system.

(2)The conviction does not meet the legislative purpose of illegally absorbing public deposits.

The legislative purpose of the crime of illegally absorbing public deposits is to prohibit non-financial institutions from using the funds absorbed for credit activities, and to prohibit non-financial institutions from engaging in financial activities. Fundraisers raise funds not for capital operations but for production operations, and legitimate production and operation activities are aimed at obtaining normal operating profits. The legitimate deposit taking behavior of financial institutions aims to obtain interest spreads through the financing of funds, such as lending and credit granting. The purpose of financial institutions engaged in financial business is significantly different from raising funds for legitimate business activities. These two types of profit seeking behaviors are allowed by law and do not intersect with each other, and should not have different legal consequences.

4. End

Fundraising by fundraisers for the agreed legitimate production and operation purposes is a normal private financing behavior. Any economic activity carries certain risks, and both financing parties should have the psychological preparation to bear the risks. Even for financial borrowing within the formal system, banks, as the core of financial institutions, also need to bear the risk of not being able to collect loans. The inability to repay due to the failure of the fundraiser's operation after raising funds is also a normal business risk category, rather than a result of the fundraiser's subjective pursuit. Although this behavior has social harmfulness and should bear certain administrative and civil responsibilities, it does not constitute a criminal offense and does not infringe on the relevant legal interests protected. According to the principle of "legality for crimes and punishments", it cannot be convicted. Therefore, those who raise funds for legitimate production and business activities should not be convicted and dealt with as illegally absorbing public deposits.

References

[1] Zhou Yang and Tang Wanxin: "Or China's Crime and Punishment", "Economy", Issue 3, 2006.

[2] Yu Heming: Illegal Fund Raising in the Criminal Law - Analysis of the "Puzhen" Case and Sun Dawu Case as Samples, Financial Law Court, 2004, Issue 111.

[3] Li Xunwen: "How to handle the boundary between private financing and illegal fundraising in the context of the financial crisis", "Law and Society", Issue 22, 2009.