帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪（以下简称“帮信罪”或“本罪”）自《刑法修正案（九）》生效以来实施已近八年之久，经历了初期的沉寂与激活后案件数量的爆发式增长。伴随着帮信罪案件数量的急剧增长，本罪的司法适用过程中产生了一系列问题。本文的研究侧重于司法实践，通过对近期裁判文书网帮信罪相关文书的深入实证分析，对帮信罪在司法实践中仍然存在的包括“定罪主客观要件不明确”“与共犯及其他赃款赃物类犯罪界限不明”“从宽量刑情节及缓刑适用不规范”等问题进行总结与反思，并提出本罪相关制度的完善思路。

通过对2022年《关于“断卡”行动中有关法律适用问题的会议纪要》发布后裁判文书样本中帮信罪的犯罪主体、犯罪主客观方面及量刑情况三个方面进行研究，可以较为直观的发现本罪司法适用仍然存在以下问题，一是裁判文书中对有关本罪定罪量刑的关键因素说理较少，尤其是“明知”的说理往往是一笔带过。相关概念含义不清，尤其是主观“明知”含义的不明导致现有的判决更注重客观行为方面的论证，有客观归罪之嫌。二是由于同其他网络犯罪共犯及相似罪名界限不清，存在帮信罪优先使用的倾向，导致部分重罪轻刑化处理。三是本罪的量刑存在不规范现象，尤其是缓刑适用率不高。

本文通过图表方式辅助说明当前帮信罪的司法适用情况，归纳出现阶段帮信罪的司法适用主要问题并提出如下改进思路。对于“明知”应理解为明确的知道，排除“应当知道”与“可能明知”，而“明知可能”是“明知”的下位概念，可以涵盖于“明知”的范围内。推定“明知”的适用应当肯定综合认定规则是对具体推定情形的限制，同时应当完善不属于“明知”的情形规定。对于本罪客观行为范围的认定，虽然法条规定中采用“举例+兜底”的例示法立法技术，但是本罪本就属于兜底罪名，不应在兜底的情况下双重兜底，对此处应当采取最严格解释，仅仅应当包括法条明确举例的情形。对于本罪与其他罪名的区分，应当按照实行行为阶段的区别和刑罚的差异进行区分。对于本罪的量刑，一方面由于本罪属于妨害社会管理秩序类犯罪，而社会管理秩序概念本就比较综合，应当结合支付结算金额、帮助次数、手段、时间长短来综合评价，不能仅仅以其帮助犯罪的危害性量刑。另一方面本罪属于轻罪，应当发挥本罪非刑罚处罚措施尤其是“禁止令”的作用，帮助犯罪分子改过自新，重新回归社会。

The crime of aiding information network criminal activities (hereinafter referred to as "aiding information crime" or "this crime") has been implemented for nearly eight years since the "Criminal Law Amendment (IX)" came into effect, after the initial silence and explosive growth. With the rapid increase of the number of the crime of aiding information network criminal activities, the judicial application of this crime has occurred a series of problems. The research of this paper focuses on judicial practice. Through in-depth empirical analysis of recent judgment documents related to this crime, it summarizes and reflects on the problems still existing in judicial practice of this crime, including "unclear subjective and objective requirements of conviction""unclear boundary between this crime and information network accomplices or concealing illegally acquired income or proceeds" "lenient sentencing circumstances and non-standard application of probation", etc. And put forward this crime related system perfect thought.
Through researching the criminal subject, subjective aspects，objective aspects and the sentencing situation of this crime in the judicial application in the sample judgment documents after the release of the Meeting Minutes on the Application of Law in the Action of "Breaking the Card" in 2022, it can be found that the following problems still exist in the judicial application of this crime. First, the judgment documents on the conviction and sentencing of the crime of the key factors of reason is less, especially the "knowing" reason is often a single mention. The unclear meaning of relevant concepts, especially the unclear meaning of subjective "knowing", leads to the existing judgment paying more attention to the demonstration of objective behavior, which is suspected of objective attribution. Second, because of the unclear boundary with other cybercrime accomplices and similar charges, there is a tendency to prioritize the use of the crime of helping the letter, leading to some felonies treated with light punishment. Third, there are irregularities in the sentencing of this crime, especially the application rate of probation is not high.
In this paper, the judicial use of this crime is illustrated in the form of charts, and the main problems of the judicial application of this crime are summarized and the following improvement ideas are proposed. "Knowing" shall be understood as explicit knowing, excluding "should know" and "might know", and "knowing may" is the inferior concept of "knowing", which can be covered into the scope of "knowing". The application of presumption "knowing" should affirm that the comprehensive determination rule is the limitation to the specific presumptive circumstances, and improve the lists of the circumstances that do not belong to "knowing". For the identification of the scope of objective acts of this crime, although the law adopts the legislative technology of "example + reveal all the details term" in the provisions of the law, this crime is a pocket crime, reveal all the details  term should not use again and again, this interpretation of this crime should use the most strict standard, should only include the clear examples of the law. The distinction between this crime and other charges should be made according to the difference of the stage of carrying out the act and the difference of punishment. For the sentencing of this crime, on the one hand, because this crime is a crime that disturbs the social management order, and the concept of social management order is relatively comprehensive, should be combined with the payment and settlement amount, the number of help, means, length of time to comprehensive evaluation, can not only be based on the harm of its help crime sentencing. On the other hand, this crime is a minor crime, and should play the role of non-criminal punishment measures, especially "injunction" to help criminals rehabilitate themselves and return to society.