在社会经济的急速发展之下，掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪在实践中始终处于高发态势，行为、手段也出现了新变化、新特征。尽管本罪已经经历了两次立法上的调整与完善，最高人民法院也发布了两次司法解释，然而这些规范总是相对滞后于社会发展。司法实践中对本罪的适用面临不少亟待解决的争议问题，主要表现在四个方面：“犯罪所得及其产生的收益”的含义和范围不明确，“明知”的认定标准不完善，与上游犯罪共犯的罪名适用存在分歧，与洗钱罪的罪名适用存在分歧。针对这些问题，应当结合理论界的观点进行探讨，为司法实践提供有益的参考和指导。
首先，关于“犯罪所得及其产生的收益”之含义与范围。一方面，“犯罪所得”中的“犯罪”不仅限于财产犯罪，而且涵盖刑法分则中所有类型，上游行为既包括应当负刑事责任的犯罪行为，也包括是尚未定罪的一般违法行为；另一方面，违禁品、加工物以及出卖、交换物等，应当认定为本罪的犯罪对象。其次，关于“明知”的内容与认定标准。“明知”指的是行为人对其行为所涉及的对象有清晰的认识，以及能预见自己行为可能对他人和社会造成危害结果，“明知”的程度涵盖了明确知道和应当知道两种情形，对“明知”的认定应当综合行为人事前、事中、事后的行为表现进行法律推定和事实推定。再次，关于本罪与上游犯罪共犯之间的区分问题。需考察行为人是否存在“事前通谋”，并且应当以上游行为人实际控制犯罪所得作为区分两罪的界限：存在事前相互通谋的行为应认定为上游犯罪的共犯，事前无通谋且上游行为人实际控制犯罪所得后加入的掩饰隐瞒行为应重点认定其是否构成本罪，事前无通谋且上游行为人实际控制犯罪所得前加入的掩饰隐瞒行为应重点认定其是否构成上游犯罪的共犯。最后，关于本罪与洗钱罪的区分问题。与本罪的行为性质不同，洗钱罪并非仅涉及物理层面的赃物转移，而是通过一系列复杂的操作，旨在将非法所得的资金“洗白”，使其看似合法化，洗钱罪的客体既包括保证司法活动的秩序，又包括保障国家金融管理秩序。另外，自洗钱能够构成洗钱罪，但上游犯罪的本犯无法构成掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪，这些要素均是实务中区分两罪的关键。
总的来说，深入探讨这一罪名的司法适用问题，不仅具有深远的学术价值，更有着举足轻重的实践意义。明确“犯罪所得及其产生的收益”的含义和范围，完善“明知”认定标准，探寻不同实践情形下本罪与上游犯罪及洗钱罪的罪名适用路径，有助于精准地区分罪与非罪、此罪与彼罪。通过提出具有针对性的解决对策，能够丰富现有理论，确保刑罚与罪行相匹配，更好地维护社会公正和法治秩序。

With the rapid socio-economic development, the crime of covering up and concealing criminal proceeds or the gains of criminal proceeds has been on the rise in practice, with new changes and characteristics emerging in behaviors and means. Although this crime has undergone two legislative adjustments and improvements, and the Supreme People's Court has issued two judicial interpretations, these norms have always lagged relatively behind social development. The application of this crime in judicial practice faces many controversial issues that need to be urgently addressed, mainly manifested in four aspects: unclear meaning and scope of "criminal proceeds or the gains of criminal proceeds", imperfect identification standards of "knowing", differences in the application of charges with upstream criminal accomplices, and differences in the application of charges with the crime of money laundering. To address these issues, we should explore them in conjunction with theoretical viewpoints to provide useful reference and guidance for judicial practice.
Firstly, regarding the meaning and scope of "criminal proceeds or the gains of criminal proceeds ", on the one hand, the "crime" in "criminal proceeds" is not limited to property crimes, but covers all types in the criminal law. The upstream behavior includes both criminal acts that should be subject to criminal responsibility and general illegal acts that have not yet been convicted. On the other hand, contraband, processed goods, and items sold or exchanged should be identified as the criminal objects of this crime. Secondly, regarding the content and identification standards of "knowing", it refers to the actor having a clear understanding of the objects involved in their behavior and being able to foresee the possible harmful consequences of their behavior on others and society. The degree of "knowing" covers both clearly knowing and should know. The identification of "knowing" should be based on legal and factual presumptions by synthesizing the actor's behavior before, during, and after the event. Thirdly, regarding the distinction between this crime and upstream criminal accomplices, it is necessary to investigate whether the actor has "pre-planning" and should take the actual control of criminal proceeds by the upstream actor as the boundary to distinguish the two crimes: the behavior of mutual pre-planning should be identified as an accomplice in the upstream crime; the concealment and concealment behavior that joins after the upstream actor actually controls the criminal proceeds without pre-planning should focus on determining whether it constitutes this crime; and the concealment and concealment behavior that joins before the upstream actor actually controls the criminal proceeds without pre-planning should focus on determining whether it constitutes an accomplice in the upstream crime. Finally, regarding the distinction between this crime and the crime of money laundering, unlike the behavioral nature of this crime, the crime of money laundering does not only involve the physical transfer of stolen goods, but aims to "launder" illegally obtained funds through a series of complex operations to make them seem legitimized. The object of the crime of money laundering includes both ensuring the order of judicial activities and safeguarding the national financial management order. In addition, self-laundering can constitute the crime of money laundering, but the perpetrator of the upstream crime cannot constitute this crime. These elements are the key to distinguishing the two crimes in practice.
Overall, exploring the judicial application of this crime in depth not only has far-reaching academic value but also has significant practical implications. Clarifying the meaning and scope of "criminal proceeds or the gains of criminal proceeds", improving the identification standards of "knowing", and exploring the application path of this crime and upstream crimes and money laundering crimes under different practical situations will help to accurately distinguish between crime and non-crime, and this crime and other crimes. Proposing targeted countermeasures can enrich existing theories, ensure that punishments match crimes, and better maintain social justice and the rule of law.