洗钱是指通过各种手段掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得及其收益，从而逃避法律追究的行为。最初，发达的经济与金融环境促使洗钱活动起源于上世纪初的西方国家，随着经济与金融全球化的深入发展，洗钱活动开始向世界各地蔓延，并成为一种国际公害犯罪，受到全球范围内的严惩与讨伐。在我国，早期的洗钱犯罪属于赃物犯罪，由窝藏、代为销售赃物罪统一规制；在国际反洗钱立法的影响与推动下，1990年《关于禁毒的决定》首次将毒品洗钱行为入罪，后来1997年修订刑法典时才正式设立了第191条洗钱罪。二十多年来，特别是2003年我国批准《联合国打击跨国有组织犯罪公约》生效后，洗钱罪历经三次修改，其规制边界呈扩张之势。然而，洗钱罪在我国仍然是一个不够成熟的罪名，在探索其完善路径的过程中，出现了或激进、或保守、或中立的不同声音，我国刑事立法与刑事司法深陷困局，前路未卜。在这一背景下，以我国洗钱罪为研究对象、以“洗钱罪的合理边界”为议题的研究具有重要价值。本文共分为五章，主要内容如下：

第一章是“我国洗钱罪的规制现状与边界困局”。本章通过考察我国洗钱罪的立法与司法现状，发现该罪正面临三大边界困局，立法缺陷是困局产生的根源，后续的解释不当则起到了促成作用。在立法层面，洗钱罪脱胎于传统赃物罪，其主客观构成要件分别为：主观上具有掩饰、隐瞒七类特定上游犯罪所得及其收益的故意，客观上实施了掩饰、隐瞒七类特定上游犯罪所得及其收益的法定行为类型。在司法层面，目前最高司法机关发布了一部司法解释与一部司法指导性文件，虽然涵盖的事项与问题较为广泛，但许多关键性罪状的解释立场均不明朗。与此同时，相关案例及国际反洗钱组织的评估结果显示，我国洗钱罪的实际适用效果远未达到理想状态。申言，我国洗钱罪正面临着三大边界困局：一是罪名体系混乱，看似条理清晰的立法格局，实则在体系安排、构成要件与刑罚设定上逻辑错乱，造成了第191条洗钱罪、第312条掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪、第349条窝藏、转移、隐瞒毒品、毒赃罪三个赃物罪名适用率畸高畸低的乱象；二是入罪范畴不当，上游犯罪受限、行为方式设置不合理、主观故意要求过于严格、特殊主体刑事责任不明等立法缺陷导致现行洗钱罪的处罚范围过于狭窄；三是解释认定困难，立法与解释环节的缺漏和不当使得具体案件中对“明知”的认定、“掩饰、隐瞒……来源和性质”的理解以及一些特殊情形的处断产生了较大争议。

第二章是“洗钱罪边界划定的合理性依据”。本章从学理、事实与规范三个层面对我国洗钱罪的规制边界提出了进一步扩张和完善的具体要求。在学理层面，社会学、金融学与法学领域的有关理论分别影响着洗钱罪边界划定的价值取向：其一，风险社会中的洗钱风险得以现实化确证并迅速发展，这使得洗钱罪的法益保护目的必须进一步全面化、前置化；其二，不同于金融监管和反洗钱监管，洗钱犯罪化所追求的价值目标应当是绝对的金融安全；其三，法秩序统一理念要求构建反洗钱立法体系必须实现行刑衔接，罪刑法定原则要求划定和调整犯罪边界必须坚持立法先行。在事实层面，国内洗钱犯罪的发展态势和严打严惩的刑事政策都敦促洗钱罪边界及时进行调整与扩张。在规范层面，国际公约、国际标准中的洗钱犯罪化条款要求我国继续扩容上游犯罪并修正客观行为方式，国内反洗钱行政法律则要求洗钱罪必须补足针对反洗钱渎职行为的刑事责任内容。

第三章是“洗钱罪边界划定的总体维度”。本章旨在从内、外两个维度确定洗钱罪边界划定的总体准则，为后文提出具体的修法方案奠定基础。内部维度指向洗钱罪本身的罪质，决定了罪与非罪的判断标准；外部维度指向洗钱罪的体系定位，决定了此罪与彼罪的区分规则。在内部维度上，洗钱罪具有双重罪质，其双重性体现在行为、犯罪与法益三个层面，并形成了“行为属性决定犯罪性质，犯罪性质决定法益指向”的逻辑关系：首先，洗钱行为一方面以犯罪所得及其收益为对象，从属于上游犯罪，另一方面又因其非法资金活动的本质具备独立的金融属性；其次，洗钱行为的从属性与独立性决定了将其犯罪化后的洗钱罪同样具有双重的犯罪性质；最后，洗钱罪的从属性与独立性引导其法益保护内容分别指向了司法管理秩序与金融管理秩序，且金融一侧的法益内涵正朝着金融安全的方向发展。在外部维度上，洗钱罪作为一种特殊的赃物罪，与掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪和窝藏、转移、隐瞒毒品、毒赃罪共同构成了我国的赃物罪名体系。洗钱罪之于其他赃物罪的共性体现在它们对上游犯罪的从属性，洗钱罪之于其他赃物罪的个性则在于其独立的金融属性，这也是洗钱罪与其他赃物罪的区分关键，即利用金融手段掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得及其收益的，才是洗钱行为，由洗钱罪规制，否则只是普通的窝赃行为，应认定为其他赃物罪。

第四章是“洗钱罪边界调整的具体方案”。为弥补当前的立法缺陷，本章整体上是从扩张刑事立法的角度，适度增补、填充了洗钱罪的各项构成要件，力求为该罪划定一个科学合理的规制边界。具体的修法方案包括以下四大部分。第一，上游犯罪扩容。为兼顾刑法的稳定性与灵活性，采取“渐进式”策略：短期目标立足“有限扩容”，增补“诈骗犯罪”和“赌博犯罪”两类上游犯罪，并设定“其他有关法律规定的犯罪”作为兜底项，将灵活补足的任务交给前置反洗钱法；但就长远来看，洗钱罪的双重罪质与体系定位决定了上游犯罪不应成为其实现法益保护目的的阻碍和区分此罪与彼罪的标准，故长期目标应当是“无限扩容”至所有犯罪。第二，客观行为修正。依据“行为性质”标准对洗钱罪的客观行为进行类型化改造后，首先排除了单纯“提供资金账户”行为的不法性，其次简化了已有的“转移、转换”行为，再次增加了不法程度较低的“获取、占有、使用”行为，最后同步修正了掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪的行为方式。第三，主观罪过扩展。在现行洗钱罪作为单一故意犯的基础上，将过失洗钱入罪具有法益侵害性、非难可能性与处罚必要性三个实质依据；但是，通过增设新罪或刑法解释的手段将过失洗钱入罪都不合理，合适的路径应当是调整和修改现行洗钱罪的条款。第四，特殊主体赋责。特殊主体的反洗钱渎职行为是指反洗钱义务主体未履行反洗钱义务，进而过失地协助他人掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得及其收益的行为。在过失洗钱入罪后，洗钱罪的过失犯条款正好可以容纳评价这一行为的刑事责任。

第五章是“洗钱罪边界调整后的解释与适用”。本章主要对边界调整后洗钱罪的犯罪构成要件以及实际认定中的一些特殊情形进行了梳理，并据此确定了新的解释与适用规则。在洗钱罪的构成要件中，客观行为是故意犯与过失犯的共用要件，应围绕其金融属性进行解释；故意犯中主观要件的认定要并重认识和意志因素，“明知”应仅限于“知道”，排除“应当知道”；过失犯不同于故意犯的特殊要件包括主体要件（反洗钱义务主体）、客观要件（危害结果与因果关系）、主观要件（违反注意义务）。在洗钱罪的实际认定中，自洗钱行为的处断规则、他洗钱行为与上游犯罪共犯行为的区分规则均会因行为性质、行为类型而异；另外，单位洗钱犯罪中可能会出现三种情形——使用公司资金账户洗钱、为实施犯罪而设立公司以及反洗钱义务机构过失参与洗钱，均应分别讨论。

Money laundering refers to the act of concealing and hiding the proceeds of crime and their profit through various means, so as to evade legal liability. Initially, the developed economic and financial environment prompted money laundering activities originated in western countries at the beginning of the 20th century. With the in-depth development of economic and financial globalization, money laundering has been beginning to spread to all parts of the world and becoming an international public pollution crime, which is being severely punished and cracked down on a global scale. In our country, the early money laundering crime was booty crime, which was uniformly regulated by the crime of harboring and selling stolen goods. Under the influencing and propelling of international anti-money laundering legislation, drug money laundering was first criminalized by Decision on the Prohibition Against Drugs in 1990, then China established money laundering crime under Article 191 when the Criminal Code was amended in 1997. Over the past 20 years, especially after ratifying the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime in 2003, this crime has been amended three times, and its regulatory boundaries have been expanding. However, money laundering crime is still an immature crime in our country. In the process of exploring how to perfect money laundering crime in China, there are different voices that are radical, conservative or neutral, while our criminal legislation and justice are in a deep dilemma, and the future is uncertain. In this context, the research on the topic of “reasonable boundary of money laundering crime” with money laundering crime as the core research object is of great value. This article is divided into five chapters, the main contents of which are as follows:

The first chapter is “The Current Situation of Regulation and Border Dilemma of Money Laundering Crime in China”. By examining the current legislative and judicial status of money laundering crime in China, this chapter finds that the crime is facing three major boundary dilemmas, legislative defects are the root cause, and subsequent improper interpretation has played a contributing role. At the legislative level, money laundering crime is born out of the traditional booty crime. Its subjective tatbestand is the intention to disguise and conceal the proceeds of seven specific predicate crimes and their proceeds, and objective tatbestand is committing the statutory type acts. At the judicial level, the highest judicial organ has issued a judicial interpretation and a judicial guidance document, although them cover a wide range of associated matters, but the interpretation position on many key criminal elements is not clear. At the same time, the relevant cases and the assessment results of international anti-money laundering organizations show that the actual application effect of money laundering crime in China is far from ideal. Specifically, money laundering crime is facing three boundary dilemmas. First, the accusation system is chaotic, and the seemingly clear legislative pattern is actually logically disordered in the system arrangement, constituent elements and punishment setting, resulting in a confusion situation in the application rate of the money laundering crime in Article 191, the crime of disguising and concealing criminal proceeds and its profits in Article 312, and the crime of harboring, transferring and concealing drugs and its proceeds in Article 349. Second, the scope of criminalization is improper, such as the restriction of predicate crimes, the unreasonable setting of behavior methods, the overly strict subjective aspect, and the unclear criminal responsibility of special subjects. Third, it is difficult to interpret and determine, and legislation defects make the determination of “knowing” , “disguise, conceal... source and nature” and other special circumstances have caused considerable controversy.

The second chapter is “Reasonable Basis for the Boundary Delimiting of Money Laundering Crime”. From the academic, factual and normative aspects, this chapter puts forward specific requirements for further expansion and improvement of the regulatory boundary of money laundering crime in China. At the academic level, the relevant theories in the fields of sociology, finance and law respectively affect the value orientation of the boundary delineation of money laundering crime. First, the risk of money laundering in the risk society is being realistically confirmed and developing rapidly, which requires the legal interests protection of money laundering crime become larger and earlier; Second, unlike financial supervision and anti-money laundering supervision, the valuable goal pursued by the criminalization of money laundering should be absolute financial security; Third, the concept of unification of legal order requires that it is necessary to achieve the connection between administrative law and criminal law when constructing the anti-money laundering legislative system, and the principle of legality requires that the delimitation and adjustment of criminal boundaries must first start with legislation. At the factual level, the grim situation of domestic money laundering crimes and the severe criminal policy have urged the timely adjustment and expansion of money laundering crime. At the normative level, the criminalization provisions of money laundering in international conventions and international standards require China to continue to expand the predicate crimes and adjust the objective behavior methods, while the domestic administrative anti-money laundering law requires that the money laundering crime must complement the criminal liability content against anti-money laundering malfeasance.

The third chapter is “The Overall Dimensions of the Boundary Delimiting of Money Laundering Crime”. This chapter aims to determine the overall criteria for the boundary delimiting of money laundering crime from both internal and external dimensions, so as to lay the foundation for the specific amendments proposed later. The internal dimension points to the nature of this crime itself, which determines the judgment standard of crime and non-crime; The external dimension points to the systematic positioning of money laundering crime, which determines the rules for distinguishing this crime from other crimes. In the internal dimension,  Money laundering crime has dual natures reflecting in act, crime and legal interest, which forms a logical relationship that “the nature of behavior determines the nature of crime, and the nature of crime determines the legal interest protection purposes”. First, money laundering behavior is not only targeted at the proceeds of predicate crime and its proceeds, and is subordinate to predicate crime, but also has independent financial attributes due to the nature of its illicit financial activities. Then, the dependency and independency of money laundering behavior determine that money laundering crime also has a dual criminal nature. Lastly, the dependency and independency of money laundering crime respectively guide its legal interest protection content to the judicial management order and the financial management order, and the financial legal interest is moving towards financial security. In the external dimension, as a special booty crime, money laundering crime together with the crime of disguising and concealing criminal proceeds and its profits, and the crime of harboring, transferring and concealing drugs and its proceeds constitute China's booty crime system. The commonality between money laundering crime and other booty crimes is reflected in their dependency nature to predicate crimes, and the personality of money laundering crime lies in its independent financial nature, which is also the key to distinguish it from other booty crimes, that is, money laundering behavior means disguising and concealing criminal proceeds and its profits through financial channels so as to be regulated by money laundering crime, otherwise it is an ordinary behavior of harboring booty that can only be recognized as the other booty crimes.

The fourth chapter is “Concrete Adjustment for the Border of Money Laundering Crime”. In order to remedy the current legislative gaps in money laundering crime, this chapter reasonably adds and fills the tatbestand of money laundering crime from the perspective of expanding criminal legislation, and strives to draw an scientific and reasonable regulatory boundary for this crime. The specific amendment plan includes the following four parts. First, the expansion of predicate crimes. In order to take into account the stability and flexibility of the criminal law, taking a “progressive” strategy. The short-term strategy is based on “Limited Expansion”, adding “fraud crime” “gambling crime” and setting “other crimes stipulated by relevant laws” as the “catch-all provision”, and entrusting the task of flexible supplementation to the administrative anti-money laundering law; however, in the long run, the duality and system positioning of money laundering crime requires that the predicate crime should not be an obstacle to its legal interest protection realization and the standard for distinguishing this crime from others, so the long-term goal should be “Unlimited Expansion” to all crimes. Second, objective behavior correction.After typing the objective acts of money laundering crime according to the “nature of behavior” standard, “provide funds account” is excluded, then, the existing “transfer and convert” is simplified while “acquire, possess and use” with a low degree of invasion is added, and finally the behavior mode of the crime of disguising and concealing criminal proceeds and its profits is simultaneously corrected. Third, the expansion of subjective forms. On the basis of the current money laundering crime as a single intentional crime, the criminalization of negligent money laundering has three substantive grounds, including the infringement of legal interests, the possibility of criticism and the necessity of punishment. However, it is not reasonable to add a new crime or use criminal law interpretation to criminalize money laundering by negligence, so the appropriate path should be to adjust and amend the provisions of the existing money laundering crime clause. Fourth, special subject responsibility given. Anti-money laundering malfeasance by special subjects refers to the failure of the anti-money laundering obligations, and then negligently assists others in disguising and concealing criminal proceeds and their profits. After the criminalization of money laundering by negligence, the negligent crime clause of money laundering crime can accommodate the punishing of this behavior.

The fifth chapter is “Interpretation and Application after the Boundary Adjustment of Money Laundering Crime”. After adjusting the boundary, this chapter mainly explains the tatbestand of the crime and analyses some special circumstances in the process of actual confirmation, which puts forward the new interpretation and application rules. In the tatbestand of money laundering crime, objective conduct is a common element of intentional and negligent crime, which should be explained according to its financial nature; The confirmation of the subjective elements in intentional crime should give equal weight to the factors of cognition and will, and “knowing” should be limited to “knowing exactly”, and excluded “should be known”; The special elements of negligence crime include the subject element(subjects with anti-money laundering obligations), the objective element (harmful result and causation) and the subjective element(violation of the careful duty).

In the actual determination of money laundering crime, the rules for the punishment of self-money laundering and the rules for distinguishing between assisting money laundering and predicate criminal complicity will vary according to the nature and type of acts. In addition, three situations that may arise in the unit crime of money laundering, that are using a company's fund account to launder money, establishing a company for the purpose of committing crime and anti-money laundering obligation agencies negliently participating in money laundering. All of above should be discussed separately.