随着国家对消费者权益的保护力度不断增加，知假买假活动逐渐频发，甚至出现了职业打假人群体。知假买假活动的逐利性使其与打假活动最初的社会监督性愈行愈远，逐渐显现出社会危害性。在仅通过民事或行政手段无法妥善规制知假买假活动的情况下，必须要思考如何更好地通过刑事手段来规制此类活动。但当前无论是理论界还是司法实务界，对该问题均未达成统一的标准，这也导致了司法实务中存在同案异判的问题。因而，完善对知假买假活动的司法认定标准已然迫在眉睫。
针对该问题，本文主要分为五个部分进行研究。第一部分，通过梳理近年来涉及知假买假活动的刑事裁判文书，进行了相关统计分析，归纳整理出当前知假买假活动刑事惩治中存在的主要疑难问题：非法占有目的认定的标准不一，索赔手段正当性认定的依据模糊，犯罪界限的确定存在困难。第二部分，通过分析知假买假活动的社会危害性、适当入罪的必要性、经营者过错与行为人故意，得出对于知假买假活动应当适当入罪的结论，既不能不加甄别任意入罪，也不能完全追求“非罪化”。第三部分，基于现有理论，结合相关司法案例，提出了针对主观非法占有目的的司法认定标准：在判断是否具有正当维权依据的基础上，综合考量索赔金额和一定时期内知假买假行为次数是否处于合理范畴内，索赔金额合理范畴可以参考民商法中关于惩罚性赔偿的规定或不超过所受损失的百分之三十，行为次数的合理范畴则可以参考二年内不超过三次的标准。第四部分，结合相关司法案例，完善了针对行为手段是否属于威胁要挟手段的司法认定标准：先衡量是否足以使相对方产生恐惧心理，再结合威胁要挟内容的合法性、正当性与事实基础的关联性进行综合判断。第五部分，遵循主客观相一致原则，通过类型化视角，讨论了知假买假活动中，认定敲诈勒索罪的罪与非罪问题，并论述了知假买假活动被认定为抢劫罪、诈骗罪、侮辱罪、故意伤害罪、寻衅滋事罪等其他犯罪的具体情形。

With the increasing protection of consumers' rights and interests, counterfeiting activities have gradually become more frequent and even professional counterfeiters have emerged. The profit-seeking nature of counterfeiting activities makes it farther and farther from the initial social supervision of counterfeiting activities, and gradually reveals the social harm. In the case that the counterfeiting activities cannot be properly regulated by civil or administrative means alone, it is necessary to consider how to better regulate such activities by criminal means. However, there is no unified standard for this issue in either theoretical or judicial practice, which has led to the problem of different judgments in judicial practice. Therefore, it is urgent to improve the judicial recognition standard of counterfeiting activities.
To address this issue, this paper is divided into five parts. In the first part, by sorting out the criminal adjudication documents involving counterfeiting activities in recent years and conducting relevant statistical analysis, we summarize and organize the main difficulties in the current criminal punishment of counterfeiting activities: different criteria for determining the purpose of illegal possession, vague basis for determining the legitimacy of claiming means, and difficulties in determining the crime boundary. In the second part, by analyzing the social harm of counterfeiting activities, the necessity of appropriate criminalization, the fault of the operator and the intention of the perpetrator, we conclude that counterfeiting activities should be appropriately criminalized, neither arbitrarily without screening, nor completely pursuing "decriminalization". In the third part, based on the existing theories and relevant judicial cases, the judicial determination criteria for subjective illegal possession purpose are proposed: on the basis of judging whether there is a legitimate basis for defending the right, the amount of claim and the number of times the act of buying counterfeit goods within a certain period of time are considered to be within a reasonable range, and the reasonable range of claim can be referred to the provisions of the civil and commercial law on punitive damages or not more than 30 percent of the damages suffered. The reasonable range of the claim amount can be referred to the provisions of the civil and commercial law on punitive damages or not more than 30% of the damages suffered, while the reasonable range of the number of acts can be referred to the standard of not more than three times in two years. The fourth part, combined with relevant judicial cases, to improve the judicial determination of whether the means of behavior is a threatening means of blackmail: the first measure is sufficient to cause fear of the other party, and then combined with the legality of the threatening content, legitimacy and relevance of the factual basis for a comprehensive judgment. In the fifth part, following the principle of consistency between subjectivity and objectivity, we discuss the crime and non-crime of extortion and blackmail in the activity of buying counterfeit goods through a typological perspective, and discuss the specific circumstances in which the activity of buying counterfeit goods is considered as robbery, fraud, insult, intentional injury, provocation and other crimes.