虚假诉讼严重破坏了司法秩序和司法公正，极大损害了司法权威，给社会和个人都造成了巨大的损失。但是，现行法律对虚假诉讼仍缺乏有力的规制，无论是程序法还是实体法都存在不足。本文从虚假诉讼的概念、特征、具体类型入手，深入分析虚假诉讼法律规制的现状与不足，并结合国内外的相关规定，从诚实信用原则、证据制度、调解制度、第三人撤销之诉、民事侵权责任、刑事法律责任等方面提出了一些建议。论文的第一部分对虚假诉讼进行了一般性考察。首先，虚假诉讼即诉讼各方当事人、诉讼代理人恶意串通，通过虚构法律关系或法律事实提起民事诉讼，使法院作出错误裁判，从而谋取非法利益或实现非法目的的行为。其主要特征是密切性、虚假性和非对抗性。其次，相较于恶意诉讼，虚假诉讼是一种具体形式，恶意诉讼是其上位概念；相较于诉讼欺诈，后者的内涵更广；而滥用诉权与虚假诉讼是两个完全不同的概念。最后，本文按照诉讼目的、侵害对象、具体案件类型等不同要素将虚假诉讼划分为不同的类型，以便于深入研究。论文的第二部分对虚假诉讼法律规制的现状、问题及成因进行了分析。尽管现行法律在程序法和实体法方面都对虚假诉讼有一些规定，司法实务部门也积累了很多经验，但仍存在一些不足。如虚假诉讼定义的缺失、证据制度的不足、调解制度的漏洞、诉讼模式的问题、民事侵权赔偿责任的缺失、刑事法律责任的缺失等。论文的第三部分对诉讼过程中的法律规制进行了研究。首先，具体适用诚信原则应满足以下条件：行为人是民事诉讼的当事人或诉讼代理人；存在串通行为；存在虚构法律关系或法律事实的行为；为了谋取非法利益或实现非法目的。其次，关于证据制度，应适当强化法官职权。法官一旦发现有虚假诉讼的可能性，即可采取相应措施。如当事人不出庭，而只授权诉讼代理人代为诉讼的，法官可要求当事人出庭；针对关键可疑证言，法官可要求证人必须出庭作证；双方当事人虽无异议，但法官认为确有必要的案件事实，可要求举证；针对关键证据，法官可要求当事人出示原始证据；法官认为证明力不足的关键证据，法官可要求当事人补正。最后，关于调解制度，针对疑似案件，法官可在调解的过程中采取相应措施。如当事人未出庭，代理人过于积极寻求调解，可要求当事人出庭；主要案情不明，可以要求双方当事人举证；调解可能侵害国家利益、社会公共利益或他人合法权益的，可依职权调查并要求当事人配合；调解可能损害他人合法权益的，应邀请可能被损害利益的相关单位和个人到场。论文的第四部分对诉讼终结后的法律规制进行了研究。首先，在第三人撤销之诉中，应严格审查原告身份，并详细规定此诉的相关法律后果。其次，构建虚假诉讼民事侵权责任制度，必须严格遵循民事侵权责任的四个构成要件，即加害行为、损害结果、因果关系和过错。最后，创设虚假诉讼罪，应严格遵循犯罪构成要件。即行为主体属于一般主体；行为人主观方面属于直接故意犯罪；侵害的是复合客体；行为人在客观方面实施了虚构法律事实或法律关系并据此提起民事诉讼的行为，并造成了国家利益、社会公共利益或第三人合法权益受到损害的后果。虚假诉讼不是某一种法律制度就能解决的，需要程序法与实体法结合，各种具体法律制度相补充，才能对其进行有效的法律规制。

False actions not only seriously undermine the judicial order and justice, but also damaged the judicial authority. However, the existing laws are still lack of effective regulation of the false action, either procedural or substantive law are insufficient. This paper introduces the concept, characteristics, specific types of fraud litigation, as well as the basic situation and the lack of legal regulation, and put forward some suggestions from good faith principle, the evidence system, mediation system, the withdraw suit of the third person, civil liability, criminal liability and so on. The first part of the paper mainly includes the following content: First of all, false action is a civil action that the parties and agents collude to forge the legal relationship and legal facts to make the court made a wrong judgment, so as to seek illegal interests or illegal purpose. The characteristics of false action are close, the false and non-confrontational. Secondly, compared with the related concepts, the malicious lawsuit is the upper concept of false action, the litigation fraud meaning more widely, and the abuse of litigious right is completely different from false action. Finally, in this paper, according to the lawsuit purpose, object, specific cases, the false action is divided into different types, in order to facilitate in-depth study.The second part of the paper mainly includes the following content: present situation, problems and causes of the legal regulation of false action. Such as the vulnerabilities of evidence system and mediation system, the problems of litigation mode, the lack of civil tort compensation responsibility and the absence of criminal responsibility.The third part of the paper mainly includes the following content: First of all, the specific application of good faith principle should satisfy the corresponding conditions. Secondly, the authority of the judge should be strengthening. The judges can take corresponding measures when they found the possibility of false action. Finally, the judges can take corresponding measures against suspected cases in mediation.The fourth part of the paper mainly includes the following content: First of all, the identity of the plaintiff should be examined strictly in the withdraw suit of the third person. Secondly, we must strictly follow the four elements of the civil liability for tort to construct the false action civil tort liability system. Finally, we should strictly follow the constitutive elements of the crime to regulate false action in criminal law.False action is very complex that not a single legal system can solve. We must combine variety kinds of legal system. Only in this way, I do believe, can we make effective legal regulations on false action.