The key to what you are saying is the subjective motivation for conviction. The requirement must be a kind of knowing knowledge. There are two aspects that must be paid attention to in knowing the crime. One is the content of knowing. It should be known that the item may be the proceeds of crime and the proceeds generated therefrom. As long as the actor knows that the item may be the proceeds of crime, it should be deemed as subjective knowledge. It does not require that the actor must know the specific crime proceeds of the item and how it was obtained. What is the specific item, what is the value of the item, etc. Second, the degree of knowledge. The perpetrator's degree of knowledge must be that he knows that it is the proceeds of crime or the proceeds of another person's crime, rather than the general proceeds of crime. Therefore, if the perpetrator only knows that the goods are the illegal gains of others, then the violation is no longer a judicial order but an administrative order, and naturally it should not constitute this crime. The understanding of "knowingly". In the crime of covering up, concealing criminal proceeds, and criminal proceeds, whether the criminal suspect "knowingly" is the prerequisite for distinguishing crime from non-crime. Whether "knowingly" or not is a subjective state of mind of the perpetrator. The most powerful and direct evidence to prove "knowingly" is the criminal suspect's confession. However, the criminal suspect's confession is in an unstable state, and its probative power is Changes as the content of the confession changes. Because criminal suspects are influenced by the idea of ??seeking profits and avoiding harm, they often refuse to confess that they "knowingly" harbored, transferred, acquired, sold on behalf of others, or used other methods to cover up or conceal criminal proceeds and the proceeds they generated. Some even made "knowing" confessions during the investigation stage. However, as time goes by, the suspects clearly know that their confessions will directly affect whether their actions constitute a crime and directly affect the judicial authorities' treatment of their actions. Whether to be convicted or sentenced, in order to avoid punishment, criminal suspects often overturn their original confessions of "knowingly" and "knowingly". Especially in one-on-one transactions, criminal suspects will deny that they "knowingly", which makes it very difficult to determine the crime. Therefore, correctly defining whether a criminal suspect is "knowingly aware" has become the key to combating the crime of covering up, concealing criminal proceeds and the crime of criminal proceeds. In judicial practice, when a criminal suspect refuses to make an "informed" confession and there is no other evidence to prove his "informed knowledge", the investigators will determine whether the suspect is "informed" about the crime. A presumed method is used. Because this presumption is an inner conviction formed by the investigators based on facts and evidence, it should be strictly controlled in judicial practice and the extension should not be too large. First of all, the presumption does not apply to cases where there is evidence to prove that the criminal suspect "knowingly". The presumption must be made on the premise that there is no other evidence to prove the suspect's subjective state of mind. If the criminal suspect denies it but there is other evidence to prove "knowledge", there is no need to use the presumption method. For example, the person selling the stolen goods (no less than two people) confesses that they have informed the criminal suspect of the source of the stolen goods, or there is evidence that the criminal suspect witnessed the theft or robbery of the stolen goods. Second, the criminal suspect denies "knowingly", but the person who sold the stolen goods in the predicate crime (only one person) admitted that he informed the illegal source of the stolen goods. That is, if there is one-on-one evidence to prove "knowingly", it should be supported by other objective facts. Be confirmed.
In judicial practice, if there is a tacit understanding between the buyer and the seller during the transaction, the criminal suspect denies it, and there is no confession from the person who sold the stolen goods to the person who informed the recipient of the source of the stolen goods, the following aspects can be considered: It is presumed whether the criminal suspect was "knowingly".
1. If the object of the crime is a motor vehicle, it will be presumed to be knowing knowledge according to the "Judicial Interpretation on Investigating and Handling the Crime of Theft and Robbery of Motor Vehicles". 2. If the object of the crime is ordinary property other than motor vehicles, the method of factual presumption is used to determine the degree of "knowledge" of the criminal suspect's illegal source of the stolen goods: first, look at the time and place of the stolen goods transactions, such as night purchases, roadside purchases, etc. In acquisitions, etc., the "knowledge" secondly depends on the variety and quality of the stolen goods. If the stolen goods belong to a new product that has just been released on the market, the possibility of illegal origin is high, because the legitimate owner will not sell it easily, unless the stolen goods come from robbery or theft. ; The third is to see whether the transaction price is significantly lower than the market value. According to experience, for ordinary sellers of stolen goods, the stolen money is only a small part of the value of the stolen goods, not the price of the stolen goods. The stolen money obtained is only about one-third of the appraised value of the stolen goods; the fourth is to see whether there are legal transaction procedures and whether the seller is eager to get rid of the stolen goods; the fifth is to see whether the stolen goods are consistent with the identity and appearance of the stolen goods and the seller's Knowledge of stolen goods, etc. Then list the basic facts that can prove "knowledge" and the basic facts that can refute "knowledge" for analysis and comparison, and then combine people's general rules of experience and logical rules to judge which side's facts and reasons are more sufficient and credible. Finally, a conclusion is drawn as to whether the criminal suspect was aware of the crime.