自洗钱行为独立成罪之探析

浙江利群律师事务所 张罗晗15167676669

【摘要】受传统刑法理论的制约，上游犯罪本犯的自洗钱行为被上游犯罪所吸收，刑法修正案（十一）将“自洗钱”行为纳入洗钱罪的范畴，这并不是突破事后不可罚或期待可能性理论。洗钱罪之行为不同于传统的赃物犯罪，自洗钱行为具有独立评价的必要性、可罚性，有其入罪的正当性。入罪后，将上游犯罪之行为人纳入该罪主体实际上是在立法层面明确了洗钱罪的犯罪主体。众所周知，洗钱犯罪中受益最大的往往就是上游犯罪本犯，这一修改不仅是从根本上打击了洗钱犯罪，也是加大了对上游犯罪的处罚力度。

【关键词】自洗钱、洗钱罪、金融犯罪、保护法益

引言

我国第一次对洗钱行为予以专门刑事规范是在1990年的《关于禁毒的决定》，且仅针对毒品犯罪的洗钱行为进行犯罪化。在1997年修订刑法时，才将洗钱罪正式编入刑法典，同时将本罪上游犯罪从毒品犯罪扩张至黑社会性质组织犯罪和走私犯罪。2001年，刑法修正案（三）将恐怖活动犯罪列入本罪上游犯罪。2006年，刑法修正案（六）将贪污贿赂犯罪、破坏金融管理秩序犯罪和金融诈骗犯罪列入上游犯罪。而2020年的刑法修正案（十一）没有继续扩大本罪上游犯罪的外延，而是将自洗钱的行为纳入洗钱罪的规制范畴。 

受传统赃物犯罪理念、事后不可罚、期待可能性理论的影响与制约，司法实践中长期将自洗钱行为作为上游犯罪的后续来处理并不作为独立的犯罪行为进行制约处罚。因此，本次修正案将自洗钱行为列入洗钱罪引起广泛讨论，或许会有不少法律人会认为这一修正更多的只是为了顺应国际反洗钱治理形势的需要以及国内反洗钱工作推行的法治需求。但将自洗钱纳入洗钱罪是建立在我国刑法理论基础之上的，具有其立法正当性，只是在这一规定之下，需要更完善的配套司法解释、文件等来指导、统筹司法实务、司法裁判。

一、赃物犯罪向金融犯罪的理念转变

  （一）洗钱罪惩治模式须要转变升级。

    从对于洗钱犯罪的治理模式来看，自洗钱行为有入罪的必要性。仅管刑法在洗钱罪入刑之初就将洗钱罪设计在刑法第三章破坏社会主义市场经济秩序罪的第四节破坏金融管理秩序罪中，但无论是从一开始仅针对毒品犯罪洗钱行为的刑事规制也好，还是从几次刑法修正案所修改添加的内容也好，尤其是从“重上游犯罪、轻洗钱犯罪”的实操观点，都能够看出我国对于洗钱行为的规制一直以来是置于传统赃物罪的理论与框架之内的。但在如今经济社会高速发展的形势下，以传统赃物犯罪的治理模式来惩治洗钱行为，已然是不符合当下国内外的发展状态。尤其是近年来，互联网经济的高速发展，电子洗钱、网络洗钱等新方式手段愈发普遍，这也更加导致对上游犯罪的侦查更为艰难，对市场、金融秩序造成的危害已不是早年可以比拟的。因此无论是出于对国际金融工作组（FATF）评估意见的整改，还是为了能更好的打击上游犯罪与洗钱犯罪，对于洗钱犯罪的规制都不应只是单单通过扩大洗钱罪的上游犯罪之范围来进行优化。

（二）洗钱行为之本质是使“黑钱”合法流转，并不受限于行为主体。

从洗钱犯罪的本质来看，自洗钱行为只是在行为人主体上与他洗钱行为不同而已。与掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪收益罪等传统赃物犯罪相比，洗钱犯罪是通过一系列复杂的漂白手段将上游犯罪所的非法收益合法化，不是简单的、消极的窝藏、转移、占有行为，不是单纯的停留在“物理层面”，而是积极的对非法收益进行质的“化学转变”。洗钱行为人（包括上游犯罪本犯）将“黑钱”予以清洗，改变了钱款性质，使之合法的流通在金融市场并得以继续为犯罪提供源源不断地资金支持，已经不能仅通过传统的赃物犯罪来全面评价洗钱罪。

洗钱罪的七类上游犯罪均是带有一定隐秘性且往往也都是会受到较为严厉的刑罚处罚，因此为了上游犯罪能更加安全的进行及犯罪行为人自身的安全，如果本犯有条件进行自我清洗，肯定优先自行漂白而不是假他人之手。无论是自洗钱还是他洗钱的行为手段均已经超过了传统赃物犯罪的行为方式，也更容易利用各种金融手段、市场手段来逃避侦查，更重要的是进行外观合法的二次、多次资金流转。同时也是随着互联网技术的发展与全面应用，金融安全、金融市场的稳定关系到整个社会的方方面面的领域，对于洗钱犯罪的理念重点必然要从赃物犯罪转换到金融犯罪之中，才能够适应形势本次修改将自洗钱行为纳入本罪范围实际上也是更加充分的认识到本罪对金融市场、金融管理秩序的危害性，更加重视对于这方面社会危险性的惩治。

二、自洗钱行为入罪之正当性

（一）洗钱罪的保护法益独立并包括了上游犯罪的保护法益

从洗钱罪的保护法益来看，自洗钱行为所侵害的法益亦独立于上游犯罪，并不依附于上游犯罪。

1、金融管理秩序。洗钱罪上游七类犯罪具有其自身的保护法益（比如毒品犯罪的保护法益是国家对毒品的管理秩序、公众健康；走私犯罪的保护法益是国家的进出口管理秩序），基于洗钱罪的行为方式、犯罪对象，洗钱罪也有其自身的保护法益，洗钱罪的主要保护法益是国家正常的金融管理秩序。（即使上游犯罪是金融犯罪，那么此时的洗钱罪侵害的也是金融管理秩序，但这是不同的具体的两个法益，不具有同一性。）最直观的就是刑法将洗钱罪规定在分则第三章第四节“破坏金融管理秩序罪”中（众所周知，刑法分则是借助法益对犯罪进行体系的安排） ，同时从洗钱罪的行为本质与造成的危害结果也能充分说明洗钱行为最主要的危害就是破坏了金融管理秩序，该罪的保护法益即是金融管理秩序。另外从法条规定列举的洗钱罪之犯罪表现，“提供资金账户；将财产转换为现金、金融票据、有价证券；通过转账或其他支付结算方式转移资金；跨境转移资金”（第五项的兜底条款也必然是同类解释为金融手段），也都是通过金融机构、利用金融系统使“黑钱”合法化，进而危害金融秩序。

2、上游犯罪的保护法益。洗钱罪的保护法益还包括了上游犯罪的保护法益。对于上游犯罪来说，洗钱行为实际也为其继续的、持续的实施提供了资金来源（上游犯罪得到“黑钱”，通过清洗流通得到合法外观，“白钱”流入市场增加资本，外观合法的黑资本继续投入上游犯罪，形成一个黑色“可持续的循环发展”），是上游犯罪的预备行为，大多数的洗钱行为都是发生在上游犯罪进行中未结束的时候（持续、组织型上游犯罪），或者是反复发生在多次同一主体的上游犯罪中。

黑社会性质组织有刑法明文规定的经济特征“有组织地通过违法犯罪活动或者其他手段获取经济利益，具有一定的经济实力，以支持该组织的活动。”；恐怖活动也有明文规定的经济特征“为恐怖活动组织、恐怖活动人员、实施恐怖活动或者恐怖活动培训提供信息、资金、物资、劳务、技术、场所等支持、协助、便利的。”这两个类型的上游犯罪的共同特点就是，将前面犯罪活动的收益投入将来的再犯罪，从而获得更大的收益或用以造就更严重的犯罪活动，并对正常的经济活动造成持续升级的危害。那么前犯罪活动的收益就需要通过洗钱行为来获得更大足以支持将来再犯罪的资金，就需要“漂白”前犯罪活动的收益。这也充分说明了，洗钱行为对于这两类上游犯罪属于是预备行为，也就是说洗钱行为为上游犯罪处理“黑钱”的同时也是上游犯罪继续实施犯罪活动的预备行为，规制了洗钱行为也就一定程度预防了上游犯罪的再犯。

除了上述两类犯罪，其他5类上游犯罪也是同理。用一次毒品犯罪所得的收益来继续实施下一次的毒品犯罪；用一次走私犯罪所得的收益来投资下一次的走私犯罪；“漂白”这次的贪污款来实现下一次的贪污行为等等。规制了这几类上游犯罪的洗钱行为也是为了防止其再次、连续的实施这些犯罪活动。

简而言之，洗钱罪针对其七类上游犯罪具有预备罪的性质，洗钱行为是七类上游犯罪的预备行为，为了预防这七类犯罪（再犯罪）将其规定为洗钱罪的上游犯罪。也就可以充分的理解，洗钱罪之上游犯罪的保护法益自然就成了洗钱罪的保护法益。

综合洗钱罪的双重法益（不是选择性法益），洗钱行为不仅侵害了金融管理秩序，同时也助长了上游犯罪，滋生了上游犯罪行为人实施更多更严重的上游犯罪。所以，从保护法益的角度，洗钱罪的行为主体没有限定，自然的包括了上游犯罪的本犯以及其他人。

（二）自洗钱行为所造成的危害性具有独立评价性，具有可罚性

1、本犯的自洗钱行为之危害性。

从洗钱罪的保护法益就能充分的说明，洗钱行为所造成的社会危险性亦独立于上游犯罪，从洗钱罪对于上游犯罪的预备性来看其社会危害在一定程度上甚至可以说是超越了上游犯罪，上游犯罪本犯的自洗钱行为的危害性必然是不能被上游犯罪所吸收，只会比他洗钱行为更为严重。

    上游犯罪本犯的自洗钱行为可以说是产生洗钱链线的根源，本犯亲自参与的洗钱活动为犯罪所得的资金清洗提供了更为隐蔽的路径，更为便利的手段方式，使资金流转的链路更为复杂，更大限度地助长了上游犯罪地滋生与再犯罪。自洗钱行为所具有的严重且无法被上游犯罪吸收评价的危害性，完全有单独进行刑法规制的必要性。尤其是现今经济社会、金融市场、互联网技术的日益发展，若还是一味的仅追求对上游犯罪的从严惩治，已是不能够满足整个上游这七类犯罪的整体犯罪活动。

2、不属于“事后不可罚行为”。

“事后不可罚行为”是指行为人在犯罪行为完成后，为确保和利用前行为的非法利益，在原有法益的范围之内又实施的一个对主要犯罪行为所造成的不法状态的保持或利用，并没有侵害新的法益。简单来说就是该事后行为所侵害的法益与前行为是同一的法益，这才有了“不可罚性”，但前文已述，洗钱罪的保护法益是独立于上游犯罪，洗钱行为不仅侵害了金融管理秩序，同时还助长了上游犯罪的滋生与再犯，也就是说洗钱罪行为（尤其是自洗钱行为）增加了上游犯罪行为次数，此时已经侵害了另一个上游犯罪的法益。其行为主体也就不限定于他人而是将上游犯罪的本犯也自然包涵在内。（这里也不存在本犯缺乏期待可能性的问题，因为无论从洗钱的行为方式还是危害结果的发生，都不是上游犯罪发展的必然选择与后果。自洗钱行为更不是消极的“物理行为”，而是积极的“化学反应”，不是期待可能性下自然状态的继续。）

结语

从入罪之初经过数次对上游犯罪外延的修改，2001年为应对国际反恐形势（911事件），2006年为应对国内反腐形势（2005年国内反腐工作进入系反腐阶段），都不难看出法律对于洗钱罪的规制基本上也是基于国内外经济、社会发展之形势，也正是因为社会、经济飞快的发展使得洗钱手段不断翻新开级对社会的危害性进一步深化与显露。传统的治理模式显然不足以应对当前国际国内的打击犯罪之需求。因此扩大洗钱罪主体，将自洗钱行为纳入洗钱罪不仅具有入罪之正当性也具有有效治理洗钱犯罪与上游犯罪的现实需求，本次修正案也是为惩治自洗钱行为提供了法律依据。上游犯罪本犯实施上游犯罪的同时指挥或参与洗钱活动，不仅侵害了上游犯罪的法益也侵害了洗钱罪的法益。其所造成的社会危险不仅在于上游犯罪所危害的结果亦包括了洗钱罪导致的危害结果。对自洗钱行为人（上游犯罪本犯）予以上游犯罪罪刑与洗钱罪罪行的数罪并罚，完全有必要性、合理性、合法性。

Analysis on the Independent Criminalization of Self Money Laundering

Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm Zhang Luohan 15167676669

【Abstract】: Due to the constraints of traditional criminal law theory, the self money laundering behavior of upstream crimes has been absorbed by upstream crimes. The Criminal Law Amendment (11) includes "self money laundering" behavior in the category of money laundering crimes, which does not break through the theory of afterwards unpunishment or expected possibility. The behavior of money laundering is different from traditional stolen goods crimes. Self money laundering behavior has the necessity of independent evaluation, the possibility of punishment, and the legitimacy of its inclusion in the crime. After being convicted, including the perpetrator of the upstream crime as the subject of the crime actually clarifies the criminal subject of money laundering at the legislative level. As is well known, the biggest beneficiary of money laundering crimes is often the upstream criminal. This modification not only fundamentally combats money laundering crimes, but also increases the punishment for upstream crimes.

【Keywords】 Self money laundering, money laundering crimes, financial crimes, protection of legal interests

introduction

The first time China implemented specialized criminal regulations on money laundering was in the 1990 Decision on Drug Control, which only criminalized money laundering related to drug crimes. When the Criminal Law was revised in 1997, the crime of money laundering was formally incorporated into the Criminal Code. At the same time, the upstream crime of this crime was expanded from drug crime to criminal organization crime and smuggling crime. In 2001, the Third Amendment to the Criminal Law included the crime of terrorist activities as a predicate crime of this crime. In 2006, the Criminal Law Amendment (VI) included corruption and bribery crimes, crimes of disrupting financial management order, and financial fraud crimes as upstream crimes. The 2020 Criminal Law Amendment (XI) did not continue to expand the scope of the upstream crimes of this crime, but instead included the act of self money laundering in the scope of regulation of money laundering crimes.

Influenced and constrained by the traditional concept of stolen goods crimes, the theory of afterwards unpunishment, and the theory of expected possibility, self money laundering has long been treated as a follow-up to upstream crimes in judicial practice and not as an independent criminal act for restrictive punishment. Therefore, the inclusion of self money laundering as a crime of money laundering in this amendment has sparked widespread discussion, and many legal professionals may believe that this amendment is more to meet the needs of international anti money laundering governance and the legal needs of domestic anti money laundering work. However, incorporating self money laundering into the crime of money laundering is based on the theoretical foundation of China's criminal law and has its legislative legitimacy. However, under this provision, more complete supporting judicial interpretations, documents, etc. are needed to guide and coordinate judicial practice and judgment.

1、 The conceptual transformation from stolen goods crimes to financial crimes

（1） The punishment model for money laundering needs to be transformed and upgraded.

From the perspective of the governance model for money laundering crimes, it is necessary to criminalize self money laundering behavior. Although the Criminal Law designed the crime of money laundering as a crime of disrupting the order of the socialist market economy in Chapter 3 of the Criminal Law, Section 4 of the Crime of Disrupting the Order of Financial Management, whether it is the criminal regulation only targeting drug related money laundering from the beginning, or the content modified and added in several amendments to the Criminal Law, especially from the practical perspective of "heavy upstream crimes and light money laundering crimes", It can be seen that China's regulation of money laundering has always been within the theoretical and framework of traditional stolen goods crimes. However, in the current situation of rapid economic and social development, using the traditional governance model of stolen goods crimes to punish money laundering is no longer in line with the current development status at home and abroad. Especially in recent years, with the rapid development of the internet economy, new methods such as electronic money laundering and online money laundering have become increasingly common, which has made it more difficult to investigate upstream crimes. The harm caused to the market and financial order is no longer comparable to earlier years. Therefore, whether it is for the rectification of the evaluation opinions of the International Financial Task Force (FATF) or to better combat upstream and money laundering crimes, the regulation of money laundering crimes should not only be optimized by expanding the scope of upstream crimes of money laundering crimes.

（2） The essence of money laundering is to enable the legal circulation of "black money" and is not limited to the subject of the act.

From the essence of money laundering crimes, self money laundering behavior is only different from other money laundering behaviors in terms of the subject of the perpetrator. Compared with traditional stolen goods crimes such as concealing and concealing criminal gains, money laundering crimes legalize the illegal gains of upstream crime centers through a series of complex bleaching methods. It is not a simple and passive act of harboring, transferring, or possessing, nor simply staying at the "physical level", but actively undergoing a qualitative "chemical transformation" of illegal gains. Money launderers (including upstream criminals) clean up "black money", changing the nature of the money, allowing it to circulate legally in the financial market and continue to provide continuous financial support for crime. It is no longer possible to comprehensively evaluate money laundering crimes solely through traditional stolen goods crimes.

The seven types of upstream crimes of money laundering all have a certain degree of secrecy and are often subject to severe penalties. Therefore, in order to ensure that upstream crimes can be carried out more safely and for the safety of the perpetrator themselves, if the perpetrator has the conditions to self clean, they will definitely give priority to self washing rather than fake hands. Both self money laundering and other money laundering methods have surpassed the traditional methods of committing stolen goods crimes, and it is easier to use various financial and market means to evade investigation. More importantly, it is necessary to conduct legitimate secondary and multiple fund transfers. At the same time, with the development and comprehensive application of internet technology, financial security and the stability of the financial market are related to all aspects of society. The focus of the concept of money laundering crime must be shifted from stolen goods crime to financial crime in order to adapt to the situation. This modification to include self money laundering behavior in the scope of this crime is actually a more comprehensive understanding of the harm of this crime to the financial market and financial management order, Pay more attention to the punishment of social dangers in this regard.

2、 Legitimacy of criminalization of self money laundering

（1） The protection of legal interests in money laundering is independent and includes the protection of legal interests in upstream crimes

From the perspective of protecting legal interests in the crime of money laundering, the legal interests infringed by self money laundering are also independent of upstream crimes and not dependent on upstream crimes.

1. Financial management order. The seven types of crimes in the upstream of money laundering crime have their own protective legal interests (for example, the protective legal interests of drug crimes refer to the country's management order of drugs and public health; the protective legal interests of smuggling crimes refer to the country's import and export management order). Based on the behavior and target of money laundering crime, money laundering crime also has its own protective legal interests, and the main protective legal interests of money laundering crime are the normal financial management order of the country. (Even if the upstream crime is a financial crime, then the money laundering crime at this time also infringes on the financial management order, but these are different specific legal interests and do not have the same identity.) The most intuitive is that the criminal law stipulates the money laundering crime in the "Crime of Disrupting Financial Management Order" section of Chapter 3 (as is well known, the criminal law section uses legal interests to systematically arrange the crime), At the same time, the essence of money laundering behavior and the harmful consequences it causes can fully demonstrate that the main harm of money laundering behavior is the disruption of financial management order, and the protection of legal interests in this crime is the financial management order. In addition, the criminal manifestations of money laundering listed in the legal provisions, such as "providing a financial account; converting property into cash, financial instruments, or securities; transferring funds through transfer or other payment and settlement methods; cross-border transfer of funds" (the basic clause in the fifth item is inevitably interpreted as financial means), are also legalized through financial institutions and the use of the financial system, thereby endangering financial order.

2. The protection of legal interests in upstream crimes. The protection legal benefits of money laundering crimes also include the protection legal benefits of upstream crimes. For upstream crimes, money laundering actually provides a source of funding for their continued and sustained implementation (upstream crimes obtain "black money", obtain legal appearance through cleaning and circulation, "white money" flows into the market to increase capital, and legal appearance black capital continues to invest in upstream crimes, forming a black "sustainable circular development"), which is a preparatory behavior for upstream crimes, Most money laundering activities occur during the unfinished stages of upstream crimes (ongoing, organized upstream crimes), or repeatedly occur in multiple upstream crimes of the same subject.

The criminal organization has the economic characteristics expressly stipulated in the Criminal Law, "it obtains economic benefits through illegal and criminal activities or other means in an organized way, and has certain economic strength to support the activities of the organization"; Terrorist activities also have a clearly defined economic characteristic of providing information, funds, materials, labor services, technology, venues, and other support, assistance, and convenience for terrorist organizations, terrorist personnel, terrorist activities, or terrorist training. The common characteristic of these two types of upstream crimes is to invest the proceeds of previous criminal activities into future recidivism, In order to obtain greater profits or create more serious criminal activities, and cause continuous escalation of harm to normal economic activities. So the proceeds of previous criminal activities need to be laundered to obtain larger funds that are sufficient to support future crimes, and the proceeds of previous criminal activities need to be "bleached". This also fully demonstrates that money laundering behavior belongs to preparatory behavior for these two types of upstream crimes, which means that money laundering behavior is not only a preparatory behavior for upstream crimes to deal with "black money", but also a preparatory behavior for upstream crimes to continue their criminal activities. Regulating money laundering behavior also to some extent prevents the recurrence of upstream crimes.

In addition to the two types of crimes mentioned above, the same applies to the other five upstream crimes. Using the proceeds of one drug crime to continue the next drug crime; Using the proceeds of one smuggling crime to invest in the next smuggling crime; Bleach the corrupt funds this time to achieve the next corrupt behavior, and so on. The regulation of money laundering in these upstream crimes is also aimed at preventing their recurrence and continuous implementation.

In short, the crime of money laundering has a preparatory nature for its seven types of upstream crimes, and money laundering behavior is a preparatory behavior for the seven types of upstream crimes. In order to prevent these seven types of crimes (recidivism), it is designated as an upstream crime of money laundering crime. It can be fully understood that the protection of legal interests in the upstream crimes of money laundering naturally becomes the protection of legal interests in money laundering crimes.

The dual legal benefits of the crime of comprehensive money laundering (not selective legal benefits) not only violate the order of financial management, but also promote upstream crimes, breeding more and more serious upstream crimes committed by upstream criminals. Therefore, from the perspective of protecting legal interests, the subject of money laundering crime is not limited, and naturally includes the perpetrator of upstream crimes and other individuals.

（2） The harm caused by self money laundering behavior has independent evaluation and can be punished

1. The harmfulness of this criminal's self money laundering behavior.

From the perspective of protecting legal interests in the crime of money laundering, it can be fully demonstrated that the social danger caused by money laundering is also independent of upstream crimes. From the perspective of the preparatory nature of money laundering for upstream crimes, its social harm can even be said to exceed that of upstream crimes. The harm of self money laundering behavior of upstream crimes cannot be absorbed by upstream crimes, and will only be more serious than other money laundering behaviors.

The self money laundering behavior of the upstream criminal can be said to be the root cause of the money laundering chain. The money laundering activities in which the perpetrator personally participates provide a more hidden path and convenient means for the laundering of funds obtained from the crime, making the flow of funds more complex and promoting the breeding and re crime of upstream crimes to a greater extent. The serious harm of self money laundering that cannot be absorbed and evaluated by upstream crimes is completely necessary for separate criminal law regulation. Especially with the increasing development of today's economy, society, financial markets, and internet technology, simply pursuing strict punishment for upstream crimes is no longer sufficient to meet the overall criminal activities of these seven types of upstream crimes.

2. It does not belong to 'unpunishable behavior after the fact'.

The "unpunishable act afterwards" refers to the act of the perpetrator, after the completion of the criminal act, to ensure and utilize the illegal benefits of the previous act, and to maintain or utilize the illegal state caused by the main criminal act within the scope of the original legal interests, without infringing on the new legal interests. Simply put, the legal interests infringed upon by the subsequent act are the same as those of the previous act, which gives rise to "unpunishment". However, as mentioned earlier, the protection of legal interests in money laundering is independent of upstream crimes. Money laundering not only violates financial management order, but also promotes the breeding and recurrence of upstream crimes. In other words, money laundering (especially self money laundering) increases the number of upstream criminal acts, At this point, the legal interests of another upstream crime have been violated. The subject of its behavior is not limited to others, but naturally includes the original perpetrator of the upstream crime. (There is also no problem of the lack of expected possibility in this case, as neither the behavior of money laundering nor the occurrence of harmful consequences are inevitable choices and consequences for the development of upstream crimes. Self money laundering behavior is not a negative "physical behavior", but a positive "chemical reaction", not a continuation of the natural state under the expected possibility.)

epilogue

From the beginning of the crime, after several modifications to the scope of upstream crimes, it is not difficult to see that the legal regulation of money laundering is mainly based on the domestic and international economic and social development situation, as well as the response to the international counter-terrorism situation (the 9/11 incident) in 2001 and the domestic anti-corruption situation in 2006 (the domestic anti-corruption work entered the anti-corruption stage in 2005) The rapid development of the economy has further deepened and exposed the harmful effects of money laundering methods on society. The traditional governance model is clearly insufficient to meet the current international and domestic demand for combating crime. Therefore, expanding the subject of money laundering and incorporating self money laundering behavior into the crime of money laundering not only has the legitimacy of criminalization, but also has the practical need to effectively govern money laundering crimes and upstream crimes. This amendment also provides a legal basis for punishing self money laundering behavior. Upstream crime: The perpetrator of an upstream crime, while directing or participating in money laundering activities, not only infringes on the legal interests of the upstream crime, but also infringes on the legal interests of the money laundering crime. The social danger it causes not only lies in the consequences of upstream crimes, but also in the consequences of money laundering crimes. It is completely necessary, reasonable, and legal to impose a combined punishment of the upstream crime and the multiple crimes of money laundering on the self money laundering perpetrator (the upstream criminal).