Study on the Presumption of “Knowledge” in the Crime of Facilitating Criminal Activities in the Information Network

本文以帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪中推定“明知”的司法实践为研究对象，通过对江西省536份裁判文书的实证分析，揭示当前司法认定中存在的突出问题。研究发现司法实践中存在问题，一是司法解释列举的“交易价格异常”“逃避监管”等推定情形易导致“明知”范围不当扩张，不能有效区分“明知”“应当明知”与“可能明知”的情形，模糊了罪与非罪界限；二是在“三级”递进式简化程序体系下证明责任分配失衡，控方对基础事实的证明标准降低，辩方有效抗辩空间被压缩，例如在“两卡”类案件中，部分裁判仅以“办卡数量异常”直接推定明知，忽视行为人辩解；三是裁判文书对推定过程说理简略化，未结合具体证据论证主观认知，削弱了司法公信力。针对上述问题，本文提出相应完善路径：在实体层面，应当明确“明知”内涵，将“应当知道”纳入明知范畴，通过综合行为人从业背景、获利情况等具体要素综合判断主观状态；在程序层面，明确控方的举证责任和证明标准，要求对辩方反证进行针对性回应；在裁判说理层面，构建“异常交易数据–经验法则适用–反证排除”的论证框架，强化事实认定的透明性。研究旨在为平衡网络犯罪打击效率与刑法谦抑性提供实践参考。This paper takes the judicial practice of the presumption of “knowledge” in the crime of helping information network criminal activities as the object of research, and reveals the outstanding problems in the current judicial determination through the empirical analysis of 536 adjudication documents in Jiangxi Province. The study found that there are problems in the judicial practice, first, the judicial interpretation of the “abnormal transaction price”, “to avoid supervision” and other presumptive circumstances can easily lead to the improper expansion of the scope of “knowingly”, and cannot Effectively differentiate between “knowingly”, “should know” and “may know”, blurring the line between crime and non-crime; Secondly, under the “three-tier” progressive simplified procedural system, there is an imbalance in the distribution of the burden of proof, and the prosecution has lowered the standard of proof of the basic facts, and the space for the defense to effectively defend itself has been compressed, for example, in the case of the “two cards” category, some of the judges have only used the phrase “an abnormal number of cards” to directly presume knowledge of the case, ignoring the perpetrator’s defense; Third, the adjudication of the presumption of the process of reasoning is abbreviated, not combined with specific evidence of subjective cognition, weakening the credibility of the judiciary. In view of the above problems, this paper puts forward the corresponding perfect path: in the entity level, should be clear “know” connotation, “should know” into the category of knowledge, through the integration of the actor’s background, profit and other specific elements of the subjective state, clear the prosecution’s proof of the case. At the procedural level, the prosecution’s burden of proof and standard of proof are clarified, and a targeted response to the defense’s counter-evidence is required; at the level of adjudicative reasoning, the argumentative framework of “abnormal transaction data - application of rules of thumb - exclusion of counter-evidence” is constructed to strengthen the transparency of factual determination. The study aims to provide practical reference for balancing the efficiency of cybercrime crackdown and the modesty of criminal law.