文/傅馨怡

摘  要：在立法与司法对赌博类犯罪的高压打击之下，赌博类犯罪依然存在高发态势。开设赌场案件发生率高，在赌博类犯罪案件中占据较高比例，其脱胎于赌博罪，与赌博罪的表现形式之一——聚众赌博存在构罪要件上的竞合以及表现形式上的高度相似性。刑事立法中未对二者的区分作出明确的指导，而学界的观点莫衷一是，司法实践中缺乏统一标准，模糊了二者的界限。本文将从聚众赌博与开设赌场的构罪要件出发，结合具体案例，对聚众赌博与开设赌场进行比较分析，并形成系统化的区分理论。

关键词：聚众赌博 开设赌场 构罪要件 支配

一、引言

非法博彩业在我国历史中由来已久，其中以赌博最为典型。赌博的本质是一方受损且另一方受益的射幸行为，这种射幸活动助长了人的侥幸心理，损害了传统美德与社会善良风俗，也为社会管理秩序增加了诸多不稳定因素。历代统治者多数认识到了赌博的社会危害性，早在战国时期，赌博行为即被犯罪化。战国时期，李悝称赌博为“博戏”，规定为《杂法》的六禁之一——嬉禁。在现代刑法体系中，赌博犯罪最早出现自1979年版刑法中，第一百六十八条规定，“以营利为目的，聚众赌博或者以赌博为业的，处三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或者管制，可以并处罚金。”明确了赌博罪有“聚众赌博”或“以赌博为业”的客观表现形式。1997年版刑法在赌博罪罪状中增加了“开设赌场”这一表现形式。2006年施行的《刑法修正案（六）》将“开设赌场”这一行为单独规定为开设赌场罪，独立于赌博罪，量刑起点与赌博罪保持一致，但增设了“三年以上十年以下有期徒刑”的量刑区间。2021年施行的《刑法修正案（十一）》将开设赌场罪量刑起点由“三年以下”调整为“五年以下”，并且新增组织参与国（境）外赌博罪。

从立法沿革看来，我国对于赌博类犯罪的打击呈现高压态势。

笔者在Alpha通过关键词检索结果显示，全国赌博罪与开设赌场罪案件数量在近十年均呈现总体上升的趋势，且涨幅较大，近两年虽有回落，但总体数量依然较大。详见图表1、图表2。

分地域来看，赌博类犯罪在浙江省与广东省尤为集中。详见图表3、图表4。

根据上述图表，不难发现，在立法与司法的威势之下，赌博类犯罪案件仍呈现多发态势。根据最高人民检察院于2021年11月29日召开的“依法履行检察职能，从严惩治开设赌场犯罪”新闻发布会公布的数据显示，截至发布当月，由检察机关移送审查起诉的赌博类犯罪中，开设赌场罪占八成以上。2021年1月至9月，全国检察机关以开设赌场罪起诉的犯罪嫌疑人高达63238人，同比上升40%，上升趋势明显。可见，开设赌场案件发生率高，在赌博类案件中占据较高比例，而开设赌场与聚众赌博在客观表现上具有较高的相似性，在构罪要件上存在一定的竞合。我国现行刑法中对于赌博罪与开设赌场罪的规定均是简单罪状，相关司法解释未对聚众赌博与开设赌场的界别进行进一步解释，在司法实践中，对于二者的区分缺乏统一的指导标准。

本文将从构罪要件出发，对开设赌场与聚众赌博进行比较分析，总结二者的一致性与差异性，结合实践中的具体案例，对二者的区分问题进行进一步理论探索。

二、聚众赌博与开设赌场的构罪要件分析

（一）犯罪主体要件

聚众赌博与开设赌场的犯罪主体具备一致性。二者均系普通犯，犯罪主体系一般主体，即年满16周岁且具备刑事责任能力的自然人。现行刑法未将单位作为赌博类犯罪的主体。学界存在部分观点认为单位亦可构成赌博类犯罪，并且相较于自然人犯罪具有更广泛的社会危害性。但在现行刑事法律体系下，聚众赌博与开设赌场的主体均不包括单位。

值得注意的是，《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理赌博刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第五条第一款对具有国家工作人员身份的人从事赌博犯罪的情形，作出了从重处罚的规定。该条文的规定，系将犯罪主体的身份作为量刑的情节而非入罪要件，不应与身份犯相混淆。

（二）犯罪主观要件

《刑法》第三百零三条已明确规定，聚众赌博行为人在主观上需“以营利为目的”，但开设赌场罪的罪状中则没有明确将主观要件作为前缀。对此，部分观点认为这属于立法技术上的问题，不能因此认为开设赌场罪不具有“以营利为目的”的主观特征。笔者认为这一观点并不足以解释开设赌场罪在主观特征上需要以营利为目的。在《刑法修正案（六）》新设开设赌场罪为独立罪名以前，开设赌场行为是赌博罪的客观表现形式之一，开设赌场行为构成赌博罪需要以营利为目的，举轻以明重，开设赌场行为构成开设赌场罪更应当以营利为目的；并且，从开设赌场行为人架设赌场、招揽赌客、雇佣人员运营赌场并从中抽头渔利等行为看来，以营利为目的是不言而喻的。

聚众赌博与开设赌场在主观要件上具有一致性，均要求行为人以营利为目的，故不以营利为目的，亲朋好友之间少量财物输赢的娱乐活动显然不应被入刑的。并且营利的方式包括通过赌博行为赢取财物以及通过抽头渔利或以各种名义向赌客收取费用而取得财物。

（三）犯罪侵害的法益

犯罪行为的可罚性在于其存在社会危害性，而社会危害性则来源于行为对法益的侵害。在理论界主张赌博非罪化的呼声层出不穷，如认为赌博类犯罪是无被害人犯罪，即不具有法益侵害性，又如认为赌博行为损害的是社会善良风尚，不具有刑法上的可罚性。但在国内社会风俗与刑法体系之下，将赌博行为非罪化显然是缺乏逻辑基础的。我国目前刑事立法对于赌博类行为的犯罪化与非罪化问题采取的是折衷的态度，将具有严重社会危害性的赌博类行为入刑，而社会危害性较轻的赌博类行为则由行政手段予以打击，即理论界主张的“限制性犯罪化”。

那么无论是聚众赌博行为或是开设赌场行为，毋庸置疑都具有法益侵害性，并且二者损害的法益具有一致性。我国刑事立法史上，始终将赌博犯罪置于刑法分则的妨害社会管理秩序罪一章中，多数观点认为赌博犯罪侵害的是公共法益。也有部分观点认为赌博犯罪侵犯的法益是财产所有权与社会风尚。主张这一观点的学者认为无论是赌博或是开设赌场的行为，都是为他人创设了财产损失的风险，同时违背了社会所推崇的健康、向上的道德风尚。笔者认为，这一观点并不足取。如果认为财产所有权是赌博犯罪侵害的法益，那么参赌者即是行为被害人。虽然在事实上，赌博犯罪确实为被害人创设了财产损失的风险，但是从产生风险到造成实害的因果进程并不是由犯罪行为人排他支配的，此时的风险是抽象危险。而被害人享有选择权，只有在被害人选择以财产损失为代价参与赌博，该危险才得以具体化，而真正支配因果进程使得实害结果具体实现的是被害人本身，换言之，财产的损失事实上是缘于被害人的处分，被害人在明知财产损失风险的情况下，甘愿自陷风险，参与赌博，应当认为是被害人的自我答责，那么就无法将法益损害结果归责于赌博犯罪行为人，赌博犯罪也就不具有可罚性。因而，认为财产所有权是赌博犯罪侵害的法益的观点，显然在逻辑上是不自洽的。而社会风尚属于道德层面的要素，纯粹损害伦理道德的行为显然不具有刑法层面的可罚性。

笔者认为，聚众赌博与开设赌场所损害的法益应当是社会公共法益，具体而言，其所损害的是健全的社会秩序。一方面，它放大了人性中的侥幸心理，破坏了以劳动取得财产的经济生活方式与秩序；另一方面，它埋下了社会矛盾的隐患，成为一系列犯罪的诱因，危及社会治安管理秩序。

（四）犯罪客观表现形式

聚众赌博与开设赌场在行为主体、侵害法益、主观故意三个方面均具有一致性，二者在客观表现形式上也具有一定的相似性，都具备纠集多人赌博、行为人抽头渔利等表现，但二者的区别也正体现在客观表现形式中。

1.聚众赌博

《刑法》第三百零三条第一款规定了聚众赌博系赌博罪的行为方式之一，但是没有进一步对聚众赌博的表现形式作出解释，学界对此众说纷纭。有观点认为聚众赌博即纠集多人从事赌博。也有观点认为聚众赌博就是不特定多数人共同赌博的行为。

两高《关于办理赌博刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第一条列举的构成聚众赌博的四种情形，无一不提及“组织”二字。可见，刑法对于聚众赌博处罚的重点在于“聚”的行为，即组织、招揽赌客参与赌博的组织行为。那么将聚众赌博解释为不特定多数人共同赌博显然是违背刑法谦抑性与立法本意的。聚众赌博具有社会危害性的关键在于组织、纠集赌客参与赌博活动的意思联络行为，对于赌博活动的普通参加者或以“以赌博为业”入罪，或处以行政处罚，而不应认定为聚众赌博。此外，两高《关于办理赌博刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第一条列举的第一种情形，将抽头渔利的数额作为入罪的标准，可见，抽头渔利也是聚众赌博中常见的行为方式。据此，聚众赌博的客观行为应当是组织、纠集不特定对象参与赌博活动，行为人从中抽头渔利。

2.开设赌场

开设赌场罪的罪状中未对开设赌场的行为方式进行进一步解释。有观点认为开设赌场是指开设以行为人为中心，在其支配下供他人赌博的场所的行为。也有观点认为开设赌场不仅是开设供人赌博的场所，还包括制定规则提供赌具。也有观点认为，开设赌场是行为人成为主宰，提供赌博的场所及赌具，供他人赌博，行为人从中营利的行为。横向来看，不同观点对于开设赌场行为的定义大同小异，均强调“场所”以及行为人对“场所”的控制。但是不同观点各有其侧重，如赌具的提供、规则的制定、抽头渔利等表现。

开设赌场，顾名思义，其行为方式首先应当包含设立、提供场所的行为。开设不仅局限于行为人亲自开设场所供人赌博，也包括经营他人设立的场所、参与他人场所的利润分成等。并且该场所不仅是实体的场所，也包括虚拟场所。最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部《关于办理网络赌博犯罪案件适用法律若干问题的意见》明确将开设、经营赌博网站的行为纳入开设赌场罪，并且为赌博网站提供互联网接入、服务器托管、技术支持、资金支付结算业务、投放广告等服务，同时收取服务费达到一定数额或广告投放量达到一定数量的，作为开设赌场罪共同犯罪进行处罚。其次，除了设置场所之外，行为人还会提供赌博所必须的要件，如制定规则、提供赌具等。最后，行为人通过收取服务费、手续费、抽头渔利等方式以此营利。

三、聚众赌博与开设赌场罪之区分

从赌博类犯罪的立法沿革看来，开设赌场罪脱胎于赌博罪，聚众赌博是赌博罪的客观表现形式之一，而开设赌场在刑事立法史上也曾是赌博罪的客观表现形式之一，二者在行为主体、主观故意、损害法益三个方面均具有一致性，在客观表现形式上都有纠集多人参与赌博、行为人从中渔利的表现，在实践中，聚众赌博行为与非典型的开设赌场行为往往难以区分。关于如何对二者进行界别的争论甚嚣尘上，实务界与理论界对此都作出了一系列尝试。

（一）聚众赌博与开设赌场罪在司法实践中的区分

以下是来源于司法实践的两则案例：

案例一：2012年10月至12月，周某伙同王某某在文成县某处山上，组织二十名以上赌博人员进行赌博，并从中抽取头薪达人民币5000元以上。其间，王某某帮助赌场介绍护赌人员，并多次运送韦某某、蓝某某等人至赌场护赌。

案例二：2014年5月13日至5月15日卜某某、许某、沈某某在当地某村一民房中开设赌局，三人安排郑某在赌场内抽头，安排顾某、王某某在赌场外望风，组织二十多名赌博人员以“硬牌九”的形式聚众赌博，从中抽头渔利共计10000余元。

通过横向对比，上述两则案例中的犯罪行为其实存在高度的相似性，行为人均是设立场所招揽赌客赌博并从中抽头渔利，同时雇佣人员负责赌场抽头、护场、望风等工作。赌博活动规模也很相似，均是二十人左右。不同的是，案例一中，赌博活动持续了两个多月，而案例二中的赌局在开设第三天即被公安机关查获。两则案例的处理结果相去甚远。第一则案例，检察院以赌博罪提起公诉，法院最终认定开设赌场罪，第二则案例，检察院以开设赌场罪提起公诉，法院最终以赌博罪进行裁判。第一则案例的裁判理由中指出，该案的赌场具有一定的开放性、组织性，在时间上具有稳定性与持续性及参赌人员的不特定性等表现形式，符合开设赌场的构成要件。而案例二裁判文书则载明，该案行为人赌博的场所不固定，参赌人员系临时召集，赌博持续时间短，并具有一定隐秘性，其行为已经构成赌博罪。

以上两则案例的裁判理由将区分聚众赌博与开设赌场的重点落脚于场所的固定性、时间的持续性、赌博人员的范围等要素。根据笔者在裁判文书网检索相关刑事判决书发现，场所固定、时间稳定、聚赌规模、人员分工等是在裁判理由中高频出现的关键词。司法实践中，多数法院区分聚众赌博与开设赌场的着眼点在于，开设赌场具有开放性，面对的是不特定多数人，聚赌范围不确定，规模较大，场所与聚赌时间具有固定性，组织紧密，人员分工明确，而聚众赌博则恰恰相反，无论是场所还是人员均具有临时性，人员关系较松散。

司法实践中区分开设赌场与聚众赌博的观点是基于经验总结而来，具有一定的借鉴意义，也确实在部分案件此罪与彼罪的界定中发挥了相当的作用，但是其内容过分冗杂，要件松散，未形成体系化的方法论。并且部分要件缺乏必然性，如开设赌场的案件中，场所通常是固定的且时间稳定，但是也存在非典型的开设赌场案件，其场所具有流动性，时间亦不固定，因此，以“场所固定性”与“时间稳定性”这两项要件对开设赌场与聚众赌博进行区分，并不能导向唯一的结论。此外，部分要件在判断时主观性较强，可能引发同质案件裁判结果截然相反的情况，反而模糊了二者的界限。

（二）理论界关于区分聚众赌博与开设赌场罪的争论

学界关于聚众赌博与开设赌场的区分标准亦莫衷一是。

有观点认为，区分二者的关键是对赌场的定义。主张这一观点的学者认为应当从三方面对赌场进行定义。第一，开设赌场中的赌场在空间范围上比聚众赌博的场所更广，不仅包括传统赌场，也包括网络赌场。第二，开设赌场往往时间固定，且较为隐蔽，行为人具有较强的反侦察力，而聚众赌博则相对较公开、随意。第三，开设赌场是以固定的“场所”吸引赌博人员参与赌博，而聚众赌博的赌博人员往往是行为人召集的，较为松散。

笔者认为，这一观点并不足取，其对于聚众赌博与开设赌场的表现形式的认识存在部分误区。首先，这一观点认为开设赌场的“赌场”包括网络赌场，而聚众赌博的场所则不包括网络赌场。这从根本上否定了网络聚赌行为在刑事层面的可罚性，这显然是与立法本意相背离的。根据最高人民法院、最高人民检察院《关于办理赌博刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第一条的规定，考察行为人是否构成聚众赌博系根据抽头渔利数额、赌资数额、参赌人数等进行判断，而赌博场所的性质并非要件之一。在司法实践中也不乏将网络赌博以赌博罪论处的实例，如广东省高州市李某某赌博案、河南省鹤壁市淇滨区杨某赌博案等。并且，这一观点在逻辑上是存在自我矛盾的。其认为开设赌场是以固定场所吸引赌客，那么赌场应当具有开放性，面向不特定对象的，但同时该观点又认为开设赌场具有隐蔽性，这显然是自我矛盾的。

亦有观点认为，应当从以下四个方面对二者进行区分。一是行为落脚点。开设的赌场的重点在于“场”，而聚众赌博的重点在于“众”。二是行为人是否直接参赌。开设赌场的行为人往往仅提供场所、赌具等而不直接参赌，但聚众赌博的召集人往往积极参赌。三是严密程度。开设赌场内部人员分工明确，组织严密，由行为人直接或间接控制，而聚众赌博的召集人对赌局往往不具有控制权。四是社会影响。开设赌场具有仿黑社会性质组织特点，往往与其他一系列犯罪伴生，具有严重的社会危害性。而聚众赌博相对而言社会危害性较小。

这一观点对于聚众赌博与开设赌场的区分标准更倾向于经验总结，而缺乏理论支撑。主张这一观点的学者认为开设赌场的行为人往往不直接参赌而聚众赌博行为人则相反，但无论在立法或司法实践中，从未将行为人是否参赌作为认定开设赌场或聚众赌博的要件，并且在实践中，有大量开设赌场的案例行为人亦积极参赌，尤其是非典型性的开设赌场案件。此外，该观点将开设赌场罪与其他违法犯罪行为之间偶然的、变态的因果关系错认为是必然的、常态的因果关系。因此这一观点缺乏普适性与指导意义，反而模糊了此罪与彼罪的界限。

此外，还有观点认为，区分二者的关键在于行为人对于赌博活动是否具有控制性。主张这一观点的学者认为，应当从三个方面来衡量行为人对于赌博活动的控制性，一是，对于赌博场所的控制性。二是对于内部人员分工的控制性，主要体现为明确的上下级关系与工作制度。三是对经营的控制性。主要体现为制定规则、提供赌具、确定营业时间与营利方式。

以控制性来区分开设赌场与聚众赌博的观点是将区分的关注点从形式要件转移到实质基础上的重要尝试。观点一与观点二均试图通过总结开设赌场与聚众赌博的外化表现来对二者的区别进行穷尽列举，此类观点关注二者在外化表现上的区别但不深究二者差别存在的实质基础，实则构建了一个封闭体系，难免与实践脱节，亦缺乏法理支撑。但第三则观点亦非尽善尽美。该观点认为开设赌场行为人对场所具有控制性，而聚众赌博行为人对赌博场所则不具有控制性。但实践中不乏行为人在自己所有的、租赁的房屋中聚众赌博或在建立的微信群中聚众赌博的实例，在此类情况下，聚众赌博行为人对赌博场所亦具有控制性。如浙江省宁波市海曙区朱某某赌博案中，行为人朱某某在酒店房间中纠集人员聚众赌博。该案中，酒店房间虽然不属于行为人所有，但是在行为人租住期间，其享有对该房间绝对的排他控制权。

（三）区分理论新探

笔者认为，开设赌场与聚众赌博在行为方式上存在包含关系，聚众赌博系单一行为，表现为纠集众人赌博并从中营利，而开设赌场则是复合行为，行为人提供场所以外，还具有招揽赌客、雇佣人员、抽头渔利等行为表现。

无论是开设赌场或是聚众赌博，都存在供以赌博的场所，是否有场所、组织性如何、开放性如何、人员分工如何均只是二者区别的外化表现，或称进行区分的形式要件。开设赌场区别于聚众赌博的实质应当在于行为人对于赌博活动的支配性。探究二者的区别，应当从实质基础出发，结合外化表现进行分析。由于开设赌场中的“赌场”，并非简单的“场所”，此处的赌场应当是集合概念，系场所、人员、赌具、资金等的集合，因此行为人的支配不仅针对场所，还应对人员、资金等具有支配性。开设赌场的行为人应当对赌博场所、内部人员、资金三方面均具备支配性，而这种支配性恰是聚众赌博行为不具备的。

1.对场所的支配性

开设赌场行为人对于赌博的场所享有空间上的支配权，这种支配是事实上的支配，即行为人在一段时间内能够实际控制该场所。行为人可以通过所有权来对场所进行支配，所有权本身具有独占性，在此基础上行为人自然能够实现对场所的支配。除此之外，这种排他支配亦可通过占有的方式实现，无论是规范性占有或是事实占有均可建立支配。

如长沙市开福区刘某开设赌场案中，行为人出资租赁长沙市开福区某村一仓库以“扳坨子”方式开设赌场。租赁法律关系建立的占有即是典型的规范性占有。行为人对该场所不享有所有权，但是在租赁关系存续期间，该租赁物只得由行为人一人支配，甚至排除所有权人的干扰。即使租赁物在事实上未处于行为人的监管之下，支配依然存在。

江西省丰城市陈某某开设赌场案中，行为人在丰城市某座荒山的空地处开设赌场。该案中行为人对于场所的占有便是事实占有。行为人对于山林不可能享有所有权，也不存在通过法律行为建立的规范上的权利，行为人通过事实行为将该场所置于自身的、临时的、实际监管范围内，从而对其形成事实占有。

同时，开设赌场的行为人对于场所还应当具备功能上的支配性。即行为人能够单独支配场所的用途、场所地址、持续时间等。

功能上的支配性是开设赌场与聚众赌博在“场所”这一要件上的区别所在。聚众赌博行为人对于赌博的场所可能存在空间上的支配，但是不存在功能上的支配。聚众赌博“聚”的前提是意思联络人与其他赌客之间的事前合意，换言之，赌局开设与否、开设时间、开设地点等不由行为人单独支配，因此，聚众赌博行为具有较强的人合性，往往因人而聚因人而散，先有人的集合而后有赌局，这就决定了该行为在外化表现上具有隐蔽性，范围较封闭。而开设赌场的行为人则不需要与赌博人员进行事前的意思联络，行为人单方面就能够支配场所功能的实现，赌博人员因场而聚。二者在社会危害程度的区别亦在于此，聚众赌博产生社会危害的根源在于组织者纠集众人赌博的意思联络行为，赌博范围通常是一个闭环，社会影响有限，而开设赌场受众则是不特定的相对人，聚赌范围具有开放性，对于社会管理秩序的危害范围更为广泛、危害程度更为严重。

实践中有部分观点，将场所是否长期、稳定地经营作为界定开设赌场与聚众赌博的要件之一，实践中不乏赌场开设数日即被公安抓获的案例，此类案件是由于外部原因导致赌场不能长期、稳定经营，如果因此便认为该类案件不能构成开设赌场罪，显失公平。因此，这一观点过于理想化，缺乏可操作性，不足取用。

2.对人员的支配性

    对人员的支配性是区分开设赌场与聚众赌博最显著的要件，亦是最具操作性的要件。开设赌场行为人对赌场内部的人员应当具有支配性，即在赌场范围内其与内部工作人员之间存在上下级的隶属、管理关系，并且这种关系不以物质报酬作为必要条件。

内部工作人员纵向间有严格的等级关系，横向则有明确的分工，组织结构严密，最终的支配权回归于赌场经营者一人或几人。从常规的开设赌场案件看，常见的分工种类有抽头渔利、接送赌博人员、兑换现金、放风护场等，开设者、经营者通常会给予上述人员一定的报酬，但报酬有无并不影响内部分工关系的存在。此外，承担赌场工作职责的人亦有可能积极参与赌博。

多数聚众赌博案件中，人员是没有明确分工的，但部分聚众赌博案件的行为人之间亦可能存在分工，如有专门负责望风、抽头渔利等工作的人员，但这种分工往往具有自发性与不稳定性，并且召集人对其他人员不具有支配性，系平等关系，亦不存在等级划分。如广西省贵港市平南县陈某某、覃某某赌博案中，行为人陈某某与覃某某不定期在平南县某店铺门前街道商行摆设摊点，以摇骰子赌“大、小”的形式聚众赌博，由陈某某负责摇骰子坐庄，覃某某等人负责“贺利”赔补赌资，赌场共获利五千元，累计参赌人数达二十人以上。该案中，行为人之间存在分工，但是该分工是各人为实现营利而自发承担的，行为人之间不存在管理与被管理、支配与被支配的关系，并未形成严密的组织关系。

3.对资金的支配性

典型的开设赌场行为人通常提供筹码作为统一通货，筹码的兑换、资金结算等均掌握在经营者或由其雇佣的工作人员手中。而不提供筹码的赌场中，出于反侦察的考虑通常会采用现金结算，而开设赌场行为人对于赌场内现金兑换、借贷、结算支付等业务通常享有排他支配。通常表现为，开设赌场行为人为赌博人员提供高利借贷，并且这一业务只由赌场经营者控制，或者由经营者授意其雇佣的人员控制，不容他人干涉。而聚众赌博中虽然也可能存在筹码，但是无论是筹码或借贷、结算业务均不由聚赌的行为人支配。

以下通过一则案例对笔者提出的观点进行进一步说明。

基本案情：2020年11月至2020年12月24日，张某某在当地几处荒地开设露天赌局，由其提供扑克牌作为赌具，并招揽赌客前来赌博，张某某从中抽头渔利。张某某通常在傍晚五、六点通知赌客前来并告知赌客赌局的位置，赌局一直持续至次日凌晨。邹某某、郭某、陈某等人在赌局开设期间向赌客提供高利借贷。杜某某、杨某某、李某某等人接送赌客来赌局参赌，张某某不定期向上述人员支付报酬。赌局开设共计19天以上，获利共计19万元以上。

这一案例系笔者在实务中经手的案件，该案张某某的行为具备了开设赌场罪的部分特征，但并非典型的开设赌场案件，因此在办理过程中，对于行为人的定罪问题存在较大分歧。笔者认为该案件虽然并非典型的开设赌场案件，但是行为人对于场所、内部人员、资金均具有支配性，赌博活动全程均在其支配下进行，应当认定为开设赌场罪。

首先，行为人在荒地开设赌局，系通过事实占有建立了对该场所的支配。任何人在荒地均有通行和停留的权利，而行为人在此处架设赌场，是通过事实行为建立了对该场所在空间上的临时支配。该场所的运营时间、架设地点、赌博规则等均由行为人决定，不需要事先与赌博人员进行意思联络，行为人享有对场所在功能上的支配权，场所具有开放性，面向不特定对象，赌博人员因场而聚。其次，该赌场内部人员之间存在明确且固定的分工关系，所有人员与经营者之间存在明显的上下级隶属关系，受其管理与支配，组织严密。最后，该赌场内采用现金交易，在赌场内提供高利借贷的人员均是由经营者雇佣而来，现金兑换、借贷、支付结算业务均掌握在经营者手中。

四、结语

用以区分聚众赌博与开设赌场的要件无论如何繁杂，最终都不可脱离实质上的支配性。理论碍于实践、认识水平、思维方式等的局限，往往会存在一定滞后性，对于聚众赌博与开设赌场区分理论的研究也难逃这一命运。但这并非是在宣告对赌博犯罪的研究是徒劳，反而给予了所有追寻真理者一丝慰藉，教人以辩证的态度、平和的心态面对理论的优势与局限性，并借此向真理靠近。

——本文荣获2022年度台州市律师行业优秀论文研讨会优秀奖

参考文献

教材类：

【1】高铭暄：《刑法学》，北京大学出版社1989年版。

【2】高铭暄：《新编中国刑法学》，中国人民大学出版社1998年版。

【3】张明楷：《刑法学》，法律出版社2016年版。

专著类：

【1】蔡墩铭：《刑法总则争议问题研究》，五南图书出版公司1988年版。

【2】冯军：《刑事责任论》，法律出版社1996年版。

【3】[日]大塚仁：《刑法概说（总论）》，冯军译，中国人民大学出版社2003年版。

【4】熊选国：《刑法中行为论》，人民法院出版社1992年版。

【5】马克昌：《犯罪通论》，武汉大学出版社1999年版。

【6】赵秉志：《中国刑法的运用与完善》，法律出版社1987版。

【7】李希慧：《妨害社会管理秩序罪新论》，武汉大学出版社2001年版。

【8】日大谷实：《刑事政策学》，黎宏译，法律出版社2000年版。

论文类：

【1】阴建峰、袁慧：《我国赌博犯罪的刑法规制研究》，《刑事法治发展研究报告》，2013-2014年卷。

【2】徐德华：《关于赌博问题的研究——兼论<刑法修正案（六）>对赌博罪的修改》，《福建法学》2007年第3期。

【3】段启俊、黄毅波：《赌博行为非犯罪论》，《刑法论丛》2010年第1卷（总第21卷）。

【4】战立伟：《赌博的犯罪化与非犯罪化——兼论我国刑法对赌博的立场抉择》，《吉林公安高等专科学校学报》2006年第2期。

【5】周林：《赌博犯罪初论》，《西南民族大学学报〔人文社科版〕》2004年第6期。

【6】董玉庭：《赌博犯罪研究》，《当代法学》1999年第4期。

【7】张飞飞：《聚众赌博与开设赌场的界定》，《江苏法制报》2015年1月23日第00C版。

【8】李濯清、钟思文：《开设赌场与聚众赌博的区分》，《检察日报》2013年10月21日第3版。

【9】李连华、鞠佳佳：《开设赌场与聚众赌博的界限》，《中国检察官》2009年第4期。

Wen/Fu Xinyi

Abstract: Under the heavy pressure of legislation and justice against gambling crimes, gambling crimes still have a high incidence trend. The case of opening a casino has a high incidence and accounts for a high proportion in gambling crimes. It is derived from the gambling crime and is highly similar to one of the manifestations of the gambling crime - gathering people to gamble in terms of its constitutive elements and manifestations. There is no clear guidance on the distinction between the two in criminal legislation, and the academic community has different views. The lack of unified standards in judicial practice has blurred the boundaries between the two. This article will start from the constitutive elements of mob gambling and casino opening, and combine with specific cases to make a comparative analysis of mob gambling and casino opening, and form a systematic differentiation theory.

Key words: gather people to gamble, open a casino, dominate the constitutive elements

1、 Introduction

Illegal gambling industry has a long history in China, in which gambling is the most typical. The essence of gambling is a lucky act that one party suffers and the other party benefits. This lucky act encourages people's lucky psychology, damages traditional virtues and social good customs, and also adds many unstable factors to the social management order. Most rulers in previous dynasties realized the social harmfulness of gambling. As early as the Warring States Period, gambling was criminalized. During the Warring States Period, Li Xuan called gambling "gambling" and stipulated it as one of the six prohibitions in Miscellaneous Laws - the prohibition of playing. [Yin Jianfeng, Yuan Hui: Research on the Criminal Law Regulation of Gambling Crimes in China, Research Report on the Development of Criminal Rule of Law, 2013-2014 volume.] In the modern criminal law system, gambling crimes first appeared in the 1979 version of the Criminal Law, as stipulated in Article 168, "Whoever gathers people to gamble or engages in gambling for the purpose of making profits shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention or public surveillance, and may also be fined." It is clear that the crime of gambling has the objective form of "gathering people to gamble" or "engaging in gambling". The 1997 Criminal Law added the expression of "opening casinos" to the crime of gambling. The Criminal Law Amendment (VI), implemented in 2006, separately stipulates the act of "opening a casino" as the crime of opening a casino, which is independent of the crime of gambling. The starting point of sentencing is consistent with the crime of gambling, but the sentencing range of "fixed-term imprisonment of more than three years but less than ten years" is added. The Criminal Law Amendment (XI) implemented in 2021 will adjust the starting point for sentencing the crime of opening casinos from "less than three years" to "less than five years", and add the crime of organizing gambling outside the participating countries (borders).

From the perspective of legislative evolution, China's crackdown on gambling crimes presents a high-pressure trend.

According to the keyword search results in Alpha, the number of gambling crimes and casino opening crimes across the country has shown an overall upward trend in the past decade, with a large increase. Although there has been a decline in the past two years, the overall number is still large. See Chart 1 and Chart 2 for details.

Regionally, gambling crimes are particularly concentrated in Zhejiang Province and Guangdong Province. See Chart 3 and 4 for details.

According to the above chart, it is not difficult to find that under the influence of legislation and justice, gambling crime cases are still frequent. According to the data released at the press conference of "Performing procuratorial functions according to law and severely punishing the crime of opening casinos" held by the Supreme People's Procuratorate on November 29, 2021, as of the month of release, the crime of opening casinos accounted for more than 80% of the gambling crimes transferred by the procuratorial organ for review and prosecution. From January to September 2021, the number of suspects prosecuted by the national procuratorial organs for the crime of opening casinos reached 63238, up 40% year on year, with an obvious upward trend. It can be seen that there is a high incidence of casinos, which account for a high proportion of gambling cases. However, casinos and crowd gambling have a high similarity in objective performance, and there is a certain degree of overlap in the elements of crime. The provisions of the current criminal law of our country on the crime of gambling and the crime of opening a casino are simple charges, and the relevant judicial interpretation does not further explain the distinction between gambling and opening a casino. In judicial practice, there is a lack of unified guiding standards for the distinction between the two.

This article will start from the elements of crime, compare and analyze the establishment of casinos and the gathering of people to gamble, summarize the consistency and difference between the two, and further explore the distinction between the two in theory in combination with specific cases in practice.

2、 An Analysis of the Constitutive Elements of Gathering Gambling and Opening Casino

（1） Elements of criminal subject

The crime subject of gathering people to gamble is consistent with that of opening casinos. Both of them are ordinary criminals. The main body of the criminal system is a natural person who has reached the age of 16 and is capable of criminal responsibility. The current criminal law does not regard the unit as the subject of gambling crimes. There are some views in the academic circle that units can also constitute gambling crimes, and they are more harmful to society than crimes committed by natural persons [Yin Jianfeng and Yuan Hui: Research on the Criminal Law Regulation of Gambling Crimes in China, Research Report on the Development of Criminal Law, 2013-2014]. However, under the current criminal legal system, the subjects of gathering people to gamble and opening casinos do not include units.

It is worth noting that the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Gambling [Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Gambling]

Article 5 Whoever commits the crime of gambling shall be given a heavier punishment in accordance with the provisions of Article 303 of the Criminal Law in any of the following circumstances:

（1） Having the status of a state functionary;

（2） Organizing state functionaries to gamble abroad;

（3） Organizing minors to participate in gambling, or opening casinos to attract minors to participate in gambling.] The provisions on heavier punishment for gambling crimes committed by persons with the status of state functionaries have been made. The provisions of this article refer to the identity of the criminal subject as the circumstances of sentencing rather than the elements of incrimination, and should not be confused with the identity crime.

（2） Subjective elements of crime

Article 303 of the Criminal Law has clearly stipulated that people who gather to gamble need to "make profits" subjectively, but the crime of opening a casino does not explicitly use the subjective element as a prefix. In this regard, some views believe that this is a problem of legislative technology, and it can not be considered that the crime of opening casinos does not have the subjective characteristics of "profit-making" [Xu Dehua: Research on Gambling Issues -- Also on the Amendment to the Criminal Law (VI) to Gambling Crime, Fujian Law Journal, 2007, Issue 3.]. The author believes that this view is not enough to explain the subjective characteristics of the crime of opening casinos need to be for profit. Before the Criminal Law Amendment (VI) newly established the crime of opening casinos as an independent crime, the act of opening casinos was one of the objective manifestations of the crime of gambling; Moreover, it is self-evident that the purpose of making profits is to set up casinos, attract gamblers, hire people to operate casinos and make profits from them.

Gathering people to gamble and opening a casino are consistent in the subjective elements, both of which require the actor to make profits for the purpose, so it is not for the purpose of making profits, and the entertainment activities between relatives and friends that win or lose a small amount of property obviously should not be punished. And the ways of making profits include winning property through gambling and obtaining property through taking profits or collecting fees from gamblers in various names.

（3） Legal interests infringed by crime

The punishable nature of criminal acts lies in their social harmfulness, which comes from the infringement of legal interests by acts. In the theoretical circle, there are endless calls for decriminalization of gambling. For example, people think that gambling crimes are victimless crimes [Ridagushi: Criminal Policy Science, translated by Li Hong, Law Press, 2000 edition, pp. 89-90.], that is, gambling is not harmful to legal interests, and that gambling harms social good practices, It is not punishable by criminal law [Duan Qijun, Huang Yibo: Theory on Non crime of Gambling, Criminal Law Series, 2010, Vol. 1 (total Vol. 21)]. However, under the domestic social customs and criminal law system, decriminalization of gambling is obviously lack of logical basis. At present, our country's criminal legislation adopts a compromise attitude towards the criminalization and decriminalization of gambling behaviors. Gambling behaviors with serious social harm are punished, while gambling behaviors with less social harm are cracked down by administrative means, That is, the "restricted criminalization" advocated by the theorists [Zhan Liwei: Criminalization and decriminalization of gambling -- also on the position choice of China's criminal law on gambling, Journal of Jilin Public Security College, 2006, Issue 2].

So whether it is gambling or opening a casino, there is no doubt that the legal interests are infringed, and the legal interests damaged by the two are consistent. In the history of criminal legislation in China, gambling crimes have always been placed in the chapter of crimes against social management order in the specific provisions of criminal law. Most people believe that gambling crimes infringe on public legal interests. There are also some views that the legal interests infringed by gambling crimes are property ownership and social customs [Zhou Lin: Preliminary Discussion on Gambling Crimes, Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities [Humanities and Social Sciences Edition], 2004, Issue 6]. Scholars who advocate this view believe that whether gambling or opening a casino, it creates a risk of property loss for others, and violates the healthy and progressive morality advocated by the society. The author believes that this view is not sufficient. If the property ownership is considered to be the legal interest infringed by gambling crime, then the gambler is the behavior victim. Although in fact, gambling crime does create a risk of property loss for the victim, the causal process from risk to actual harm is not exclusively dominated by the perpetrator. At this time, the risk is abstract. The victim has the right to choose. Only when the victim chooses to participate in gambling at the cost of property loss can the danger be materialized. What really dominates the cause and effect process and makes the actual result of the harm come true is the victim itself. In other words, the loss of property is actually due to the punishment of the victim. The victim is willing to risk himself when he knows the risk of property loss and participates in gambling, which should be considered as the victim's self responsibility, Then it is impossible to attribute the result of legal interest damage to the perpetrator of gambling crime, and gambling crime is not punishable. Therefore, the view that property ownership is the legal interest infringed by gambling crimes is obviously inconsistent in logic. However, social fashion is an element of morality, and the behavior that purely damages ethics obviously does not have the punitive nature of criminal law.

The author believes that the legal interests harmed by gathering people to gamble and open casinos should be social public legal interests, specifically, what it harms is a sound social order. On the one hand, it enlarges the fluke psychology in human nature and destroys the economic life style and order of obtaining property through labor; On the other hand, it has buried the hidden danger of social contradictions and become the inducement of a series of crimes, endangering the order of social security management.

（4） Objective manifestations of crime

Gathering people to gamble and setting up casinos are consistent in three aspects: subject of action, infringement of legal interests, and subjective intention. They also have certain similarities in the objective form of expression, both have the performance of gathering multiple people to gamble and the behavior of taking advantage of others. However, the difference between the two is also in the objective form of expression.

1. Gather people to gamble

The first paragraph of Article 303 of the Criminal Law stipulates that gathering people to gamble is one of the forms of behavior of the crime of gambling, but there is no further explanation of the manifestations of gathering people to gamble. The academic community has different opinions on this. There is a view that gathering people to gamble means gathering more people to engage in gambling [Zhang Mingkai: Criminal Law, Law Press, 2016 edition, page 1078.]. There are also views that gathering people to gamble is an act of common gambling by unspecified majority [Dong Yuting: Research on Gambling Crime, Contemporary Law, 1999, Issue 4].

Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Some Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Dealing with Criminal Cases of Gambling

For the purpose of making profits, one of the following circumstances shall be regarded as "gathering people to gamble" as stipulated in Article 303 of the Criminal Law:

（1） Organize more than 3 people to gamble, and the total amount of profits from tapping has reached more than 5000 yuan;

（2） Organize more than 3 people to gamble, and the accumulated amount of gambling funds reaches more than 50000 yuan;

（3） Organize more than 3 people to gamble, and the number of participants accumulatively reaches more than 20;

（4） Organize more than 10 citizens of the People's Republic of China to go abroad to gamble and collect kickbacks and referral fees from them.] Among the four listed situations that constitute mass gambling, the word "organization" is mentioned. It can be seen that the criminal law focuses on the behavior of "gathering" for gambling punishment, that is, the organizational behavior of organizing and soliciting gamblers to participate in gambling. So it is obviously against the modesty of criminal law and the original intention of legislation to interpret the gathering of people to gamble as the common gambling of unspecified majority. The key to the social harmfulness of mass gambling is to organize and gather gamblers to participate in gambling activities. Ordinary participants in gambling activities may be convicted of "gambling as a profession", or be subject to administrative punishment, but should not be regarded as mass gambling. In addition, the first case listed in the first article of the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in Dealing with Criminal Cases of Gambling issued by the two high schools takes the amount of tap profits as the standard of conviction. It can be seen that tap profits are also a common way of behavior in gambling. Therefore, the objective behavior of gathering people to gamble should be to organize and gather unspecified objects to participate in gambling activities, from which the actors can take a chance to make profits.

2. Opening Casino

The crime of opening a casino does not further explain the behavior of opening a casino. Some people believe that opening a casino is the act of setting up a place for others to gamble under the control of the actor [Zhang Mingkai: Criminal Law, Law Press, 2016 edition, page 1079.]. There are also views that opening a casino is not only a place for people to gamble, but also includes making rules to provide gambling equipment [Yin Jianfeng and Yuan Hui: Research on the Criminal Law Regulation of Gambling Crimes in China, Research Report on the Development of Criminal Rule of Law, 2013-2014]. There are also views that the opening of casinos is an act in which the actor becomes the master, provides gambling places and gambling equipment for others to gamble, and the actor profits from it [Li Xihui: New Theory on Crimes of Disrupting Social Management Order, Wuhan University Press, 2001 edition, page 181.]. Horizontally, different viewpoints have the same definition of the act of opening a casino, emphasizing "place" and the actor's control over "place". However, different viewpoints have their own focuses, such as the provision of gambling equipment, the formulation of rules, and the performance of tapping profits.

As the name suggests, the way of opening a casino should first include the act of setting up and providing places. The establishment is not only limited to the place opened by the actor himself for gambling, but also includes the operation of the place set up by others and participation in the profit sharing of other places. And the place is not only a physical place, but also a virtual place. The Opinions of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Ministry of Public Security on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Internet Gambling Crime Cases clearly include the opening and operation of gambling websites as the crime of opening casinos, and provide gambling websites with Internet access, server custody, technical support, fund payment and settlement business, advertising and other services, At the same time, if the service fee collected reaches a certain amount or the amount of advertising reaches a certain amount, it shall be punished as a joint crime of the crime of opening a casino. Secondly, in addition to setting up places, the actor will also provide necessary elements for gambling, such as making rules, providing gambling equipment, etc. Finally, the actor makes profits by collecting service fees, service fees, and tapping profits.

3、 Differentiation between the Crime of Gathering Gambling and Opening Casinos

From the legislative evolution of gambling crimes, it can be seen that the crime of opening a gambling house originated from the crime of gambling. Gathering people to gamble is one of the objective manifestations of gambling crimes, and opening a gambling house was also one of the objective manifestations of gambling crimes in the history of criminal legislation. The two have consistency in three aspects: the subject of behavior, subjective intention, and damage to legal interests. In terms of objective manifestations, there are manifestations of gathering multiple people to participate in gambling and the actor profiting from it, In practice, it is often difficult to distinguish between group gambling behavior and atypical casino opening behavior. The debate on how to distinguish between the two is rampant, and both the practical and theoretical circles have made a series of attempts to do so.

（1） Differentiation between the Crime of Gathering Gambling and Opening Casinos in Judicial Practice

The following are two cases from judicial practice:

Case 1: From October to December 2012, Zhou and Wang organized more than 20 gambling personnel to gamble on a mountain in Wencheng County, and drew a top salary of over 5000 yuan from them. During this period, Wang helped the casino introduce gambling personnel and repeatedly transported Wei, Lan, and others to the casino for gambling protection. [Criminal Judgment No. 127 of Wen Mou Xing Chu Zi (2013) issued by the People's Court of Wencheng County, Zhejiang Province.]

Case 2: From May 13 to May 15, 2014, Bu, Xu, and Shen set up a gambling game in a residential house in a local village. The three arranged for Zheng to take a draw inside the casino, and Gu and Wang to watch out outside the casino. They organized more than 20 gamblers to gather and gamble in the form of "hard Pai Gow", with a total profit of over 10000 yuan. The People's Court of Wenjiang District, Suzhou City, Zhejiang Province (2014) Wu Jiang Xing Chu Zi No. 0707 Criminal Judgment

Through horizontal comparison, there is a high degree of similarity in the criminal behavior in the two cases mentioned above. Each of the perpetrators set up a venue to solicit gamblers to gamble and profit from it, while hiring personnel to be responsible for gambling, field protection, and lookout work. The scale of gambling activities is also very similar, with around 20 people. The difference is that in Case 1, the gambling activity lasted for more than two months, while in Case 2, the gambling game was seized by the public security organs on the third day of its opening. The processing results of the two cases are far from each other. In the first case, the prosecutor's office prosecuted the crime of gambling, and the court ultimately found the crime of opening a casino. In the second case, the prosecutor's office prosecuted the crime of opening a casino, and the court ultimately ruled on the crime of gambling. The reasons for the judgment in the first case pointed out that the casino in this case has a certain degree of openness, organization, stability and continuity in terms of time, and the non-specific nature of the participants, which meets the constitutive requirements for opening a casino. The judgment document in Case 2 states that the gambling venue of the perpetrator in the case is not fixed, the participants are temporarily summoned, the gambling duration is short, and it has a certain degree of secrecy. His behavior has already constituted the crime of gambling.

The judgment reasons for the above two cases will distinguish between crowd gambling and opening a casino, with the focus on factors such as the fixed location, the duration of time, and the scope of gambling personnel. According to the author's search of relevant criminal judgments on the Judgment Documents website, fixed venue, stable time, gambling scale, and personnel division are the keywords that frequently appear in the judgment reasons. In judicial practice, the focus of most courts in distinguishing between collective gambling and the establishment of casinos is that the establishment of casinos is open, facing an unspecified majority of people, the scope of collective gambling is uncertain, the scale is large, the venue and time of collective gambling are fixed, the organization is close, and the division of labor is clear. On the contrary, collective gambling is the opposite, with both the venue and personnel having temporary nature and loose personnel relationships.

The viewpoint of distinguishing casinos from mass gambling in judicial practice is based on experience and has certain reference significance. It has indeed played a significant role in defining this crime and that crime in some cases, but its content is too complex, the elements are loose, and a systematic methodology has not been formed. And some elements lack inevitability. For example, in cases of opening a casino, the venue is usually fixed and time stable, but there are also atypical cases of opening a casino, where the venue is mobile and the time is not fixed. Therefore, distinguishing between opening a casino and gathering gambling based on the two elements of "venue fixation" and "time stability" cannot lead to a unique conclusion. In addition, some elements have strong subjectivity in judgment, which may lead to situations where the judgment results of homogeneous cases are completely opposite, and instead blur the boundary between the two.

（2） Debate in the theoretical community on distinguishing between the crime of gathering people to gamble and the crime of opening a casino

There is also a lack of consensus in the academic community on the criteria for distinguishing between gathering for gambling and opening casinos.

There is a viewpoint that the key to distinguishing between the two is the definition of a casino. Scholars who advocate this viewpoint believe that casinos should be defined from three aspects. Firstly, the casinos in the establishment of casinos have a wider spatial range than those where people gather for gambling, including not only traditional casinos but also online casinos. Secondly, opening casinos often has a fixed time frame and is relatively covert, with strong anti reconnaissance capabilities from the perpetrator, while gathering for gambling is relatively open and casual. Thirdly, the establishment of casinos is to attract gamblers to participate in gambling through a fixed "venue", while gamblers who gather for gambling are often loosely convened by the actors. Zhang Feifei: "Definition of Gathering Gambling and Opening Casinos", Jiangsu Legal Daily, January 23, 2015, 00C Edition

The author believes that this viewpoint is not sufficient, and there are some misunderstandings in their understanding of the manifestations of crowd gambling and opening casinos. Firstly, this viewpoint suggests that the "casinos" that open casinos include online casinos, while venues that gather for gambling do not include online casinos. This fundamentally negates the criminality of online gambling behavior, which is clearly contrary to the original intention of legislation. According to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Cases of Gambling, the determination of whether the perpetrator constitutes a gathering for gambling is based on the amount of fishing profits, gambling capital, and the number of participants, while the nature of gambling venues is not one of the essential factors. In judicial practice, there are also examples of treating online gambling as a gambling crime, such as the gambling case of Li Moumou in Gaozhou City, Guangdong Province [Guangdong Province Gaozhou City People's Court (2021) Yue 0981 Criminal Judgment No. 179], and the gambling case of Yang Mou in Qibin District, Hebi City, Henan Province [Henan Province Qibin District People's Court (2021) Yu 0611 Criminal Judgment No. 373]. Moreover, this viewpoint is logically self contradictory. It believes that opening a casino is to attract gamblers with a fixed location, so the casino should have openness and be targeted towards unspecified objects. However, this view also believes that opening a casino has concealment, which is clearly self contradictory.

There is also a viewpoint that the two should be distinguished from the following four aspects. One is the foothold of behavior. The focus of the casino opened is on the "field", while the focus of group gambling is on the "crowd". The second is whether the actor directly participates in gambling. Casino owners often only provide venues, gambling equipment, etc. without directly participating in gambling, but the conveners of group gambling often actively participate in gambling. The third is the degree of rigor. The internal personnel of a casino have a clear division of labor and strict organization, which are directly or indirectly controlled by the actors. However, the conveners of group gambling often do not have control over the gambling game. The fourth is social impact. Opening casinos has the characteristics of imitating criminal organization, often accompanied by a series of other crimes, and has serious social harm. However, collective gambling is relatively less socially harmful. [Li Zhuoqing and Zhong Siwen: "The Difference between Opening a Casino and Gathering Gambling", 3rd edition of Procuratorial Daily, October 21, 2013.]

This viewpoint leans more towards empirical summary and lacks theoretical support for the distinction between crowd gambling and opening a casino. Scholars who advocate this viewpoint believe that those who set up casinos often do not directly participate in gambling, while those who engage in group gambling do the opposite. However, in both legislative and judicial practice, whether the actor participates in gambling has never been considered a prerequisite for determining the establishment of casinos or group gambling. In practice, there are a large number of cases where the actor also actively participates in gambling, especially in atypical cases of opening casinos. In addition, this viewpoint mistakenly considers the accidental and abnormal causal relationship between the crime of opening a casino and other illegal criminal activities to be an inevitable and normal causal relationship. Therefore, this viewpoint lacks universality and guiding significance, and instead blurs the boundary between this crime and that crime.

In addition, there is also a viewpoint that the key to distinguishing between the two lies in whether the actor has control over gambling activities. Scholars who advocate this viewpoint believe that the actor's control over gambling activities should be measured from three aspects: firstly, the control over gambling venues. The second is the control over the division of labor among internal personnel, mainly reflected in clear hierarchical relationships and work systems. Thirdly, control over operations. Mainly reflected in formulating rules, providing gambling equipment, determining business hours and profit methods. Li Lianhua and Ju Jiajia: "The Boundary between Opening Casinos and Gathering Gambling", Chinese Prosecutors, Issue 4, 2009

The viewpoint of distinguishing between opening a casino and gathering gambling through control is an important attempt to shift the focus of differentiation from formal elements to substantive foundations. Both viewpoint 1 and viewpoint 2 attempt to exhaustively list the differences between opening casinos and gathering gambling by summarizing their externalized manifestations. These viewpoints focus on the differences in externalization, but do not delve into the substantive basis of their differences. In fact, they construct a closed system that is inevitably disconnected from practice and lacks legal support. But the third viewpoint is not perfect either. This viewpoint holds that the person who opens a casino has control over the venue, while the person who gathers gambling has no control over the gambling venue. However, in practice, there are many instances where individuals gather to gamble in their own rented houses or in established WeChat groups. In such cases, individuals who gather to gamble also have control over gambling venues. In the gambling case of Zhu in Haishu District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, the perpetrator Zhu gathered people in a hotel room to gamble. In this case, although the hotel room did not belong to the perpetrator, during the period of the perpetrator's rental, they enjoyed absolute exclusive control over the room.

（3） A New Exploration of Differentiation Theory

The author believes that there is an inclusive relationship between opening a casino and gathering gambling in terms of behavior. Gathering gambling is a single behavior, manifested as gathering people to gamble and profit from it, while opening a casino is a composite behavior. In addition to providing venues, the behavior also includes soliciting gamblers, hiring people, and taking turns to profit.

Whether it is opening a casino or gathering for gambling, there are places for gambling. Whether there is a place, how organized, how open, and how personnel are divided are only external manifestations of the difference between the two, or formal elements for differentiation. The essence of the difference between opening a casino and gathering people for gambling should lie in the dominance of the actors over gambling activities. Exploring the differences between the two should be based on substantive foundations and analyzed in conjunction with external manifestations. Due to the fact that the "casino" in the establishment of a casino is not simply a "place", the casino here should be a collection concept, consisting of a collection of places, personnel, gambling equipment, funds, etc. Therefore, the control of the actor should not only target the place, but also have control over personnel, funds, etc. The perpetrator of opening a casino should have control over the gambling venue, internal personnel, and funds, which is precisely what collective gambling behavior does not have.

1. Dominance over the venue

The person who opens a casino has spatial control over the gambling venue, which is de facto control, meaning that the person can actually control the venue for a period of time. The actor can control the place through ownership, and the ownership itself has exclusivity. On this basis, the actor can naturally achieve control over the place. In addition, this exclusive control can also be achieved through possession, whether it is normative possession or factual possession, which can establish control.

In the case of Liu Mou opening a casino in Kaifu District, Changsha City [Criminal Judgment No. 196 (2020) Xiang 0105 Xing Chu)], the perpetrator invested in leasing a warehouse in a village in Kaifu District, Changsha City to open a casino through the "Tuozi" method. The possession established by the legal relationship of leasing is a typical normative possession. The perpetrator does not have ownership of the premises, but during the lease term, the leased property can only be controlled by the perpetrator alone, and even interference from the owner is excluded. Even if the leased property is not actually under the supervision of the perpetrator, control still exists.

In the case of Chen Moumou opening a casino in Fengcheng City, Jiangxi Province, the perpetrator opened a casino in a vacant land on a barren mountain in Fengcheng City. The actor's possession of the place in this case is factual possession. The actor cannot have ownership of the mountain forest, nor does it have normative rights established through legal actions. The actor places the place within their own, temporary, and actual regulatory scope through factual actions, thereby forming factual possession of it.

At the same time, the person who opens a casino should also have functional dominance over the venue. That is, the actor can independently control the purpose, address, duration, etc. of the place.

Functional dominance is the difference between opening a casino and gathering gambling in terms of the "place" element. Gamblers may have spatial control over gambling venues, but there is no functional control. The premise of gathering for gambling is the prior agreement between the meaning contact person and other gamblers. In other words, the opening or not, the opening time, and the opening location of the gambling game are not independently controlled by the actor. Therefore, the behavior of gathering for gambling has a strong human nature, often gathering and dispersing for each person, with the first gathering of people and then the gambling game. This determines that the behavior has a hidden and closed scope in terms of external manifestations. The actor who opens a casino does not need to communicate with the gambling personnel beforehand, and the actor can unilaterally control the implementation of the venue's functions, causing gambling personnel to gather based on the venue. The difference in the degree of social harm between the two lies in this. The root of the social harm caused by collective gambling lies in the organizer's behavior of gathering people to gamble. The scope of gambling is usually a closed loop, with limited social impact, while the audience for opening a casino is an unspecified relative person. The scope of collective gambling is open, and the harm to social management order is broader and more serious.

In practice, there are some viewpoints that consider whether the venue operates for a long time and stably as one of the criteria for defining the crime of opening a casino and gathering people for gambling. In practice, there are many cases where a casino is caught by the public security after being opened for a few days. These cases are caused by external reasons that prevent the casino from operating for a long time and stably. Therefore, if it is considered that such cases cannot constitute the crime of opening a casino, it is obviously unfair. Therefore, this viewpoint is too idealistic, lacks operability, and is not applicable.

2. Dominance over personnel

The dominance of personnel is the most significant and operational element in distinguishing between opening a casino and gathering for gambling. The person who opens a casino should have dominance over the internal personnel of the casino, that is, within the scope of the casino, there is a subordinate and management relationship between them and the internal staff, and this relationship is not necessarily based on material rewards.

There is a strict hierarchical relationship between internal staff vertically, and a clear division of labor horizontally. The organizational structure is tight, and the ultimate control returns to one or several casino operators. From the perspective of conventional cases of opening casinos, common types of division of labor include fishing for profits, picking up and dropping off gambling personnel, exchanging cash, and protecting the venue. Owners and operators usually give certain rewards to these personnel, but the presence or absence of rewards does not affect the existence of internal division of labor relationships. In addition, those responsible for casino work may also actively participate in gambling.

In most cases of crowd gambling, there is no clear division of labor among the personnel, but there may also be division of labor among the actors in some cases of crowd gambling. For example, there are personnel specifically responsible for monitoring the wind and fishing profits, but this division of labor often has spontaneity and instability, and the summoner does not have dominance over other personnel, is an equal relationship, and there is no hierarchical division. For example, in the gambling case of Chen and Qin in Pingnan County, Guigang City, Guangxi Province [People's Court of Pingnan County, Guigang City, Guangxi Province (2017) Gui 0821 Xing Chu No. 486], the perpetrator Chen and Qin set up a stall in front of a shop in Pingnan County from time to time, and gathered people to gamble in the form of rolling dice to bet on "big and small". Chen was responsible for rolling dice to set up the gambling house, and Qin and others were responsible for "Heli" to compensate for the gambling capital. The casino earned a total of 5000 yuan, The cumulative number of participants in the gambling has exceeded 20. In this case, there was a division of labor among the actors, but this division of labor was voluntarily undertaken by each person to achieve profits. There was no relationship between the actors between management and being managed, nor between control and being controlled, and a strict organizational relationship was not formed.

3. Disposability of funds

A typical casino operator typically provides chips as a unified currency, and the exchange and settlement of chips are controlled by the operator or staff hired by them. In casinos that do not provide chips, cash settlement is usually used for anti reconnaissance purposes, and the opening of casinos usually enjoys exclusive control over cash exchange, lending, settlement and payment services within the casino. Usually, the behavior of opening a casino is to provide high interest loans for gambling personnel, and this business is only controlled by the casino operator, or by personnel hired by the operator at their discretion, and cannot be interfered with by others. Although there may also be chips in collective gambling, neither the chips nor the lending and settlement businesses are controlled by the participants of the collective gambling.

The following is a case study to further illustrate the viewpoint proposed by the author.

Basic case: From November 2020 to December 24, 2020, Zhang opened an open-air gambling game in several local wastelands, where he provided playing cards as a gambling tool and recruited gamblers to come and gamble. Zhang took advantage of it. Zhang usually notifies gamblers at 5 or 6 pm in the evening and informs them of the location of the bet, which lasts until the early morning of the next day. Zou, Guo, Chen, and others provided high interest loans to gamblers during the opening period of the gambling game. Du, Yang, Li, and others pick up gamblers to participate in the gambling game, and Zhang pays remuneration to the aforementioned personnel from time to time. The gambling game has been open for over 19 days, with a total profit of over 190000 yuan.

This case is a case handled by the author in practice. Zhang's behavior in this case has some characteristics of the crime of opening a casino, but it is not a typical case of opening a casino. Therefore, there are significant differences in the conviction of the perpetrator during the handling process. The author believes that although this case is not a typical case of opening a casino, the perpetrator has control over the venue, internal personnel, and funds, and gambling activities are carried out under their control throughout the entire process, which should be recognized as the crime of opening a casino.

Firstly, the perpetrator established control over the wasteland by setting up a gambling game through factual possession. Anyone has the right to pass and stay in the wasteland, and the act of setting up a casino here establishes temporary control over the space of the place through factual actions. The operating time, installation location, gambling rules, etc. of the venue are all determined by the perpetrator, and there is no need to communicate with gambling personnel in advance. The perpetrator has the right to control the functionality of the venue, and the venue is open to unspecified objects. Gambling personnel gather based on the venue. Secondly, there is a clear and fixed division of labor among the internal personnel of the casino, and there is a clear subordinate relationship between all personnel and the operator, which is managed and controlled by them, and the organization is tight. Finally, the casino adopts cash transactions, and the personnel who provide high-interest loans within the casino are all hired by the operator. Cash exchange, lending, and payment settlement businesses are all in the hands of the operator.

4、 Conclusion

The elements used to distinguish crowd gambling from opening a casino, however complex, cannot ultimately be separated from substantive dominance. Theory often lags behind due to limitations in practice, level of understanding, and way of thinking, and research on the distinction between crowding gambling and opening casinos cannot escape this fate. But this is not to declare that research on gambling crimes is futile, but rather to provide a glimmer of comfort to all those who seek truth, teaching people to face the advantages and limitations of theory with a dialectical attitude and a peaceful attitude, and to approach truth through this.

——This article won the Excellent Award at the 2022 Taizhou Lawyer Industry Excellent Paper Seminar

References

Textbook category:

【1】 Gao Mingxuan: "Criminal Law", Peking University Press, 1989 edition.

【2】 Gao Mingxuan: "New Compilation of Chinese Criminal Law", published by Renmin University of China Press in 1998.

【3】 Zhang Mingkai: "Criminal Law", Law Press, 2016 edition.

Monographs:

【1】 Cai Dunming: "Research on Disputes in the General Principles of Criminal Law", Wunan Book Publishing Company, 1988 edition.

【2】 Feng Jun: "On Criminal Responsibility", Law Press, 1996 edition.

【3】 [Japan] Otsuka Ren: "Introduction to Criminal Law (General Introduction)", translated by Feng Jun, published by Renmin University of China Press in 2003.

【4】 Xiong Xuanguo: "On Behavior in Criminal Law", People's Court Press, 1992 edition.

【5】 Mark Chang: "General Theory of Crime", Wuhan University Press, 1999 edition.

【6】 Zhao Bingzhi: "Application and Improvement of Chinese Criminal Law", Law Press, 1987 edition.

【7】 Li Xihui: "New Theory on the Crime of Obstructing Social Management Order", Wuhan University Press, 2001 edition.

【8】 Riotagu Shi: "Criminal Policy Studies", translated by Li Hong, Law Press, 2000 edition.

Thesis category:

【1】 Yin Jianfeng and Yuan Hui: "Research on the Criminal Law Regulation of Gambling Crimes in China", "Research Report on the Development of Criminal Rule of Law", Volume 2013-2014.

【2】 Xu Dehua: "Research on the Problem of Gambling - Also on the Amendment of the Criminal Law Amendment (VI) to the Crime of Gambling", Fujian Law Journal, 2007, Issue 3.

【3】 Duan Qijun and Huang Yibo: "On the Non criminal Behavior of Gambling", Volume 1 of the Criminal Law Series, 2010 (Volume 21 in total).

【4】 Zhan Liwei: "Criminalization and Decriminalization of Gambling - Concurrently Discussing the Position Decision of Chinese Criminal Law on Gambling", Journal of Jilin Public Security College, 2006, Issue 2.

【5】 Zhou Lin: "Preliminary Discussion on Gambling Crimes", Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities [Humanities and Social Sciences Edition], Issue 6, 2004.

【6】 Dong Yuting: "Research on Gambling Crimes", Contemporary Law, 1999, Issue 4.

【7】 Zhang Feifei: "Definition of Gathering Gambling and Opening Casinos", Jiangsu Legal Daily, January 23, 2015, 00C Edition.

【8】 Li Zhuoqing and Zhong Siwen: "The Difference between Opening a Casino and Gathering Gambling", 3rd edition of Procuratorial Daily, October 21, 2013.

【9】 Li Lianhua and Ju Jiajia: "The Boundary between Opening a Casino and Gathering Gambling", Chinese Prosecutors, 2009, Issue 4.