陈卫东  崔鲲鹏 * (中国人民大学法学院，北京 100872)

【摘 要】对于电信网络犯罪诈骗数额综合认定与抽样取证的讨论，本质上均可归结于此两种方法是 否属于推定之争。对综合认定与抽样取证属推定的误解，系受推定概念混乱与印证证明思维惯性影响。 以证明标准判断，综合认定属于间接证明;从实然功能出发，抽样取证应以时间为间距，以更好发挥强 化法官心证功能。抽样取证规定中的但书条款属于证明责任分配，而非证明责任转移。被告人承担证明 责任的证明标准应采“产生合理怀疑”。为避免对犯罪数额进行模糊处理的司法风险，应加强对被告方证 明的制度保障。

【关键词】网络犯罪;犯罪数额;推定;证明标准;证明责任

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226(2024)01-0006-11

Clarification and optimization of the proof of the amount of financial loss in wire and internet fraud crimes. Chen Weidong, Cui Kunpeng. Renmin University of China Law School, Beijing 100872.

【Abstract】Discussions regarding the comprehensive determination of the amount of financial loss caused by wire and internet fraud and evidence collection through sampling are fundamentally a debate on whether the evidence derived from these methods are presumptive evidence. The misunderstanding of these methods is caused by the impact of the ambiguity of the concept of presumption and the habitual thought of corroboration. According to the standard of proof, comprehensive determination is indirect proof. Based on the substantive function of sampling, samples should be collected at measured intervals, in order to enhance the judge's discretion. The exception in the regulations on sampling evidence collection concerns the distribution of the burden of proof, instead of the burden’s transfer. The defendant's proof should meet the standard of “raising a reasonable doubt”. In order to avoid potential judicial risk of ambiguous adjudication of the amount of financial loss, it is imperative to enhance the system guarantees for the defendant's proof.

【Key Words】Cybercrime; Amount of financial loss caused by a crime; Presumption; Standard of proof; Burden of proof