区块链技术语境下智能合约犯罪的国际刑法回应

1. 引言

区块链技术，以其分布式、去中心化和安全可靠的特性，引领了新一轮的科技革命。智能合约，作为区块链技术的重要组成部分，通过自动执行合约的能力，正在逐步改变商业交易的模式。然而，任何一种新兴技术的出现都是一个双刃剑，智能合约同样面临这样的挑战。尽管它在加速商业活动、提高效率方面显示出显著优势，但其去中心化、匿名性等特性也为犯罪分子提供了新的作案手段和空间，已经观察到恐怖组织资金转移、贩卖儿童、洗黑钱等犯罪活动中智能合约的广泛应用。面对这些新的犯罪模式，从国际刑法的角度研究智能合约犯罪并寻找相应的法律应对策略，显得尤为重要。

However, the emergence of any new technology is a double-edged sword, and smart contracts face the same challenges. While it has shown significant advantages in accelerating business activities and increasing efficiency, its centralization, anonymity, etc., has also provided new tools and space for criminals, and the widespread use of smart contracts in criminal activities such as money transfers, trafficking in children, money laundering, etc. by terrorist organizations has been observed. In the face of these new criminal models, it is particularly important to look at smart contract crimes from the perspective of international criminal law and find corresponding legal responses.

2. 区块链智能合约犯罪产生原因

2.1. 区块链智能合约技术概述

智能合约(Smart contract)是指在区块链上嵌入的程序化合约，能够自动化和智能执行程序设定的内容。

Smart contract means a procedural contract embedded in the block chain, capable of automating and intelligently executing the content set by the program.

其最早是在1995年由密码学家尼克·萨博提出的 [1] 。基本逻辑类似计算机程序if-then语句(也即“if X occurs, then Y will be triggered”) [2] 。在其1.0版本中，执行一方预设程序性协议，签约一方在信任基础上同意协议，最终实现协议的运行 [3] 。但是这一阶段的智能合约面临着两个问题：一是数据来源问题，由于初期技术网络的局限性，智能合约难以获得大量的数据来源，无法进行多领域的社会扩张；二是信任机制问题，智能合约在制定伊始就天然地更倾向于执行一方，在这种情况下，签约一方能否在进行协定时产生信任就成为了智能合约建立的关键。囿于上述两个问题，智能合约长时期内未能得到充分的发展。但是，区块链技术很好地弥补了上述缺陷。

It was originally proposed in 1995 by the cryptographer Nick · Sabo. The basic logic is similar to the computer program's if-then statement (i.e. “if Xocurs, then Y will be truegered”) [2]. In version 1.0, the implementing party pre-empts the procedural agreement, the contracting party agrees to it on the basis of trust, and the final operation of the agreement [3]. However, the smart contract at this stage faces two problems: the data source problem, which, owing to the limitations of the initial technology network, makes it difficult for intelligent contracts to have access to a large number of data sources and does not allow for multi-area social expansion; and the question of trust mechanisms, in which intelligent contracts are naturally more likely to be executed at the outset of their development, in which case the confidence of the contracting party in the conduct of the agreement becomes the key to the creation of intelligent contracts.

区块链(Blockchain)作为智能时代的重要技术构成，是指利用块链式数据结构来验证与存储数据、利用分布式节点共识算法来生成和更新数据、利用密码学的方式保证数据传输和访问的安全、利用由自动化脚本代码组成的智能合约来编程和操作数据的一种全新的分布式基础架构与计算范式 [4] 。具体而言，其具备了“去中心化”、“不可篡改性”、“匿名性”、“可追溯性”等特征，这使得链上各主体能够免于中心裁决者(第三方)的信任背书 [5] ，在密码学和计算机算法的加持下获得绝对真实且安全的数据。换言之，区块链技术在容纳海量数据的同时，建立了相对完善的信任机制，这一举突破了智能合约扩张应用的两大难题，使得其能够在原有金融领域之外的广泛社会实践中发挥调配社会资源的作用 [2] 。

Block chains (Blockchain), as an important technological construct of the intelligence age, refer to the use of block-chained data structures to validate and store data, the use of distributed node consensus algorithms to generate and update data, the use of cryptography to secure data transmission and access, and the use of smart contracts consisting of automated script codes for programming and operating data in a new distributional infrastructure and computational paradigms. Specifically, they have features such as “decentralization”, “integrability”, “innocibility”, “retroactivity” and “retroactivity” that enable subjects in the chain to avoid the trust endorsements of central adjudicators (third parties), to obtain absolutely real and secure data under cryptography and computer algorithms.

总之，区块链是智能合约的驱动技术，区块链技术可以解决智能合约难以广泛展开适用的困境，二者之间密不可分。对智能合约犯罪的研究也更加需要深入到区块链语境下来，这样能够使得研究更有意义，而不是在几乎不可能实现或者发生的情况的语境下无谓讨论。

In short, block chains are smart contract-driven technologies that solve the dilemma of the widespread application of smart contracts, which are inextricably linked to each other. Research on smart contract crime also needs to go deeper into the block chain context, which makes the study more meaningful, rather than unnecessary discussion in the context of situations that are almost impossible to achieve or occur.

2.2. 区块链语境下的智能合约的犯罪风险

众所周知，新技术能够带来技术红利的同时，也同样会带来相应的风险和挑战。区块链智能合约在社会多领域的广泛应用和发展在提高资源配置效率的同时，也会引起社会中行为人行为的形变，进而衍生出超出现有法律规则边界的犯罪空间。

It is well known that new technologies can bring technological dividends, as well as corresponding risks and challenges. The widespread application and development of block-chain intelligence contracts in many areas of society, while improving resource allocation efficiency, can also lead to a shift in the behaviour of the actors in society, thereby creating a space for crime beyond the boundaries of existing legal rules.

2.2.1. “去中心化”消除第三方监管

区块链智能合约构建了除第三方监管外的信任机制，这在提高效率的同时也为犯罪分子提供了空间。正如前文所述，区块链上每一个主体都拥有平等的法律地位，对链上数据进行共建共享，这一技术条件下的智能合约也实现了交易双方自由、平等、信任、隐蔽地达成协议。区块链智能合约加强社会资源配置效率的同时，也会进一步消融第三方监管的介入，很容易给不法分子以可趁之机，使得区块链智能合约成为“法外之地”。

As mentioned earlier, each of the subjects in the chain has an equal legal status, sharing data on the chain. Smart contracts under this technical condition also achieve free, equal, trust, and covert agreement between the parties to the transaction.

2.2.2. “匿名性”阻碍犯罪侦查

区块链智能合约奉行的“假名主义” [6] 为犯罪侦查设置了阻碍。区块链语境下的智能合约所设置的匿名保护、域名频繁变更、最小化交互等程序在为交易双方提供安全保障的同时，也使得其相关的非法活动更难被执法部分所察觉、监控、侦查。此外，其所具备的隐蔽性和数据的迭代性使得犯罪行为的取证极为困难，对犯罪证据链的构建与形成带来了极大的挑战。可以说，区块链语境下的智能合约为犯罪提供了绝佳的土壤，使得其突破了常规网络犯罪的打击半径，愈来愈成为犯罪分子牟利的便利工具。

The “false nameism” of block-chain intelligence contracts[6] hinders criminal investigations. While providing security for both parties to a transaction, procedures such as anonymous protection, frequent changes in domain names and minimal interaction in block-chain intelligence contracts also make it more difficult to detect, monitor, detect the illegal activities associated with them. Moreover, their hiddenness and the iterative nature of data make it extremely difficult to obtain evidence of crime and pose a great challenge to the construction and formation of the criminal evidence chain.

2.2.3. “分布式”削弱管辖权

区块链智能合约全球性节点的“分布式”特征使得管辖权模糊。区块链语境下的智能合约突破了其1.0版本的局限性，可以在全球范围内构建分布式账本 [7] ，进行远程交易确认，使得智能合约犯罪的管辖权在世界范围内泛化。此外，区块链智能合约又因为其所具备的技术特征，导致传统的网络空间主权管辖所遵循的网络设施“领土原则” [8] 、网络主体“国籍原则” [9] 、网络行为“效果原则”无法得以适用，这更为智能合约犯罪提供了温床。

The “distribution” feature of the global node of block chain intelligence contracts obscures jurisdiction. Smart contracts in block chain settings break their limitations in version 1.0, allowing distributional book [7] to be constructed on a global scale and remote transaction confirmation, thereby spreading the jurisdiction over smart contract offences worldwide. Moreover, block chain intelligence contracts, because of their technological characteristics, have led to the traditional “territorial principle” of cyberspace sovereign jurisdiction[8], the “nationality principle” of network subjects[9], and the “effect principle” of cyberactivity, which provides a hotbed for more intelligent contract crimes.

3. 智能合约犯罪样态的主要类型

随着智能合约的广泛应用，其已经成为一个全新的犯罪载体。在国际社会实践中，智能合约犯罪呈现出不同的犯罪样态，其形形色色的犯罪样态会给国际社会的犯罪治理格局产生深刻的影响，因为有必要对其进行进一步的思考与研究。总的来说，对于智能合约可能涉及到的犯罪问题，具体可以从以下三个方面概括其类型。

With the widespread application of smart contracts, it has become a completely new vector of crime. In the international community’s practice, smart contract crime presents different patterns of crime, and its various forms and manifestations have a profound impact on the international community’s patterns of criminal governance, which require further reflection and research.

3.1. 以智能合约为犯罪手段的犯罪

智能合约犯罪的重要类型是以其为手段的犯罪。在区块链平台上，任何交易都是没有限制的，任何内容的智能合约都是被允许的。在之前的网络犯罪中，犯罪分子利用网络发布信息，进而招募共同犯罪人，锁定被害人后施行危害行为，这往往需要共同犯罪双方具备一定的信任基础。而在智能合约犯罪中，犯罪分子仅需要提前设置代码程序，当犯罪行为人相应邀约实行犯罪并达到约定条件后，智能合约将会自动运行给予相应报酬。这就使犯罪行为突破了传统网络犯罪的模式，得以通过更隐蔽、更渐变、更匿名、更难以侦破的方式快速扩散及复制。

In previous cybercrimes, criminals used the Internet to publish information, thereby recruiting co-perpetrators, and then targeting victims to commit acts of harm, often requiring a certain basis of trust between the two parties. In smart contract crimes, criminals only need to set up code procedures ahead of time, and smart contracts automatically operate to reward offenders when they are invited to commit a crime and meet the agreed conditions.

在国际范围内，智能合约已经在恐怖组织资金转移、贩卖儿童、洗黑钱等犯罪行为中广泛适用，成为犯罪规模化、智能化、全球化的重要手段。这些犯罪行为的广泛性和严重性，为全球的刑法系统带来了严重的挑战。具体而言，智能合约在恐怖组织资金转移中的应用，既具有迅速性也具有隐秘性。恐怖组织可以利用智能合约快速、无痕地转移大量资金，为其恐怖活动提供了稳定的经济支持。这种资金转移方式的智能化和全球化特点，使得传统的金融监管和反恐措施难以对其进行有效管制，从而给国际社会的安全带来了严重威胁。此外，智能合约在贩卖儿童这种严重的人权犯罪中也得到了应用。犯罪分子可以利用智能合约的匿名性和跨国特性，进行大规模、系统性的贩卖儿童活动。这种犯罪行为的规模化和全球化特点，对国际社会的道德伦理和法律规则构成了严重挑战，同时也对儿童的权益带来了深重的伤害。再者，智能合约在洗黑钱这种经济犯罪中的应用，也是令人警觉的。犯罪分子可以通过智能合约，将非法所得资金转化为合法资产，从而逃避法律的制裁。这种洗钱行为的智能化和全球化特点，使得传统的反洗钱机制难以应对，从而对全球经济秩序和金融安全造成了严重影响。

In an international context, smart contracts have become widely used in criminal acts such as the transfer of funds from terrorist organizations, trafficking in children, money-laundering, etc., and have become an important tool for the international community’s security by making it difficult for traditional financial regulations and counter-terrorism measures to regulate them effectively. In addition, smart contracts have been used in serious human rights crimes such as trafficking in children. Criminals can use the anonymity and transnational nature of smart contracts to engage in large-scale and systematic trafficking in children. The scale and globalization of such crimes pose a serious challenge to the moral and legal rules of the international community, while at the same time causing serious damage to the rights and interests of children.

总的来说，智能合约在各种犯罪行为中的广泛应用，不仅使得这些犯罪行为的规模化、智能化、全球化特点日益明显，也对全球的刑法系统提出了更高的要求。因此，各国需要加强国际刑法合作，共同面对智能合约带来的刑法挑战。

In general, the widespread use of smart contracts in various types of criminal behaviour has not only led to the scale, intelligence, and increasingly global character of these crimes, but has also placed higher demands on the global criminal justice system. Thus, States need to strengthen international criminal law cooperation to face together the criminal law challenges posed by smart contracts.

3.2. 以智能合约为犯罪对象的犯罪

智能合约犯罪的另一个主要类型是以其为犯罪对象的犯罪。有国外学者对100万份智能合约进行分析后发现：有将近34,200份智能合约很容易收到黑客攻击 [10] 。这意味着全球范围内以智能合约为犯罪的犯罪风险普遍存在。具体而言，在以智能合约为犯罪对象的场景中，犯罪呈现出“技术性犯罪”的倾向，犯罪分子往往利用技术手段针对智能合约本身的算法或程序进行破解、修改、获取信息等操作，进而完成犯罪。这一类型以2016年6月17日出现的“The DAO”事件为典型代表。在这一以太坊历史上最大的代码漏洞实践中，黑客通过技术手段将价值6000万美元的以太币进行转移，完成了符合代码逻辑的“完美犯罪”。这一案例也成为了以智能合约为犯罪对象的典型犯罪案例。

Another major type of smart contract crime is the crime of which one million smart contracts are the object. There are foreign scholars who analyze one million smart contracts: nearly 34,200 smart contracts are easily subject to hacking [10]. This means that the global risk of crimes committed with smart contracts is widespread. In a context where smart contracts are the object of crime, crime tends to be “technical sex crimes,” and criminals often use technical means to decipher, modify, obtain information, etc. against smart contracts themselves. This type is typically represented by the “The DAO” incident of 17 June 2016.

3.3. 以智能合约扩张为犯罪主体的犯罪

现阶段，智能合约犯罪的主要类型是以其为手段及对象。但是在智能合约进一步迭代拓展的情况下，在人工智能算法的加持下，智能合约极有可能突破传统“人脑–指令–协议”模式，实现自主决策的3.0版本迭代。这意味着智能合约犯罪也有可能会完全突破既有法律理论体系，成为犯罪的主体。此时，智能合约犯罪的新样态将在区块链 + 人工智能的语境下实现新的突破，会对刑法规制点来新的挑战，但这并非当前智能合约犯罪实践的主要类型，也超出了区块链技术语境下智能合约2.0版本的技术范畴，因此不加以赘述。

At this stage, the main type of intellectual contract crime is its means and its object. But, in the context of the further expansion of intellectual contracts, with the maintenance of artificial intelligence algorithms, smart contracts are highly likely to go beyond the traditional brain-direction-agreement model and achieve autonomous decision-making with 3.0 versions.

总之，就当前实践而言，区块链语境下的智能合约犯罪主要包括两种类型：一是以智能合约为犯罪手段的犯罪，其仍处于传统罪名体系范围之内，具备传统犯罪的相同特征，但又因为智能合约技术的独特性而有所不同；二是以智能合约为犯罪对象的犯罪，其已经完全突破了传统网络犯罪的语境范畴，成为了一种新的犯罪类型。

In conclusion, as far as current practice is concerned, smart contract crime in block-chain contexts consists of two main types: crime committed as a criminal means, which remains within the traditional crime system, with the same characteristics as traditional crimes, but which vary according to the uniqueness of intelligent contract techniques; and crime committed as a criminal object of intelligent contract, which has completely moved beyond the traditional cybercrime context and has become a new type of crime.

4. 智能合约犯罪对刑法的挑战

智能合约犯罪是一个依托于技术数据而辐射至各层次、各方面法益侵害的狭长体系，其更是涉及了刑法分则个账的实体内容，呈现出一种新技术与旧规定错综复杂、相互交叉的实践现状。因此，对智能合约犯罪的研究需要深入到其对现存刑法之挑战上来，进而探求传统的定罪量刑规则体系与新兴技术革命之间的平衡点。

Smart contract crime, which is a narrow system based on technical data to the point of irradiation at all levels and in all aspects of the law, involves the physical content of the penal sub-account, and presents a state of practice in which new technologies and old regulations are complex and cross-cutting. Research on smart contract crime therefore needs to go deeper into the challenges it poses to existing criminal law, thus seeking a balance between the traditional system of sentencing rules and the emerging technological revolution.

4.1. 罪与非罪：智能合约犯罪的罪名体系

区块链智能合约犯罪突破了原有刑法分则罪名体系，带来了“罪与非罪”的刑法争议。智能合约履行过程具有一定的封闭性，代码一经启动则强制执行，在执行过程中保持代码自决，没有必要甚至不可能适用法律。换言之，由于智能合约执行过程自动且不可更改，其并没有法律介入的余地。可以说，智能合约的执行是以代码为基准的，符合代码的运行结果符合一般正义。从这个意义上说，智能合约犯罪提出了一个新的问题：符合代码要求的合约操作行为是否构成犯罪？正如The DAO案例中，转走以太币的黑客表示其行为完全符合代码的技术逻辑，并不属于严格意义上的盗窃行为。由此引发出了代码和法律关系之争议，更引起了“罪与非罪”的广泛讨论。

In other words, because intelligent contract enforcement is automatic and unalterable, there is no scope for legal intervention. Smart contract enforcement can be said to be based on codes, and the result of code compliance is fair. In this sense, smart contract crime raises a new question: whether contractual conduct that meets code requirements constitutes a crime.

4.2. 此罪与彼罪：智能合约犯罪的构成

实践中，智能合约犯罪往往分为两大类型，与传统犯罪有所交叉又有所不同，为各国现行刑法带来了“此罪与彼罪”的挑战。一方面，以智能合约为对象的犯罪已经突破了现行刑法的罪名体系，其具体构成及与传统网络犯罪的区分尚不明晰；另一方面，以智能合约为犯罪手段的犯罪仍然在既有刑法框架之中，但其独特的隐蔽性、技术性特征使得智能合约犯罪情节更加复杂，需要在符合法律逻辑的同时对代码逻辑进行分析，进而区分具体罪名。总之，智能合约犯罪因为其技术的创新性与独特性给现行刑法带来了挑战，刑法需要明确智能合约犯罪之构成以确定是此罪还是彼罪。

In practice, smart contract crimes are often divided into two main types, which intersect with traditional crimes, and pose a challenge to existing national criminal law, namely, “this crime against each other.” On the one hand, crimes committed against smart contracts have broken out of the current criminal law system, and their specific composition and distinction from traditional cybercrime is unclear; on the other hand, crimes committed with smart contracts as a means of crime remain within the established criminal law framework, but their unique covert and technical characteristics complicate the circumstances of intellectual contract crimes and require an analysis of code logic at the same time as legal logic.

4.3. 重罪与轻罪：智能合约犯罪的量刑标准

区块链智能合约技术的突破使得其犯罪行为得以大范围扩展，带来了更大的社会危害性。但是就各国现行刑法而言，其对智能合约犯罪的量刑并未有明确标准。而既有刑法之规定显然未曾考虑到区块链智能合约在全球范围内扩张之现状，导致其部分犯罪刑期与实际的社会危害性并不相符。可以说，智能合约的技术扩张使得其犯罪的影响力和破坏性大幅增加，甚至超越了现行刑法之良性上限。因此，区块链技术语境下的智能合约犯罪之量刑标准亟需研究后明晰。

The breakthroughs in block-chain intelligence contracts have led to a wide expansion of criminal behaviour and greater social harm. But, as far as criminal laws are concerned, there are no clear criteria for sentencing intellectual contract offences.

4.4. 证据链：智能合约犯罪的证据认定

智能合约犯罪由于其去中心化、隐蔽性、匿名性的特征使得侦查机关取证困难。我国法律规定，在民事案件中，电子签名、可信时间戳、哈希值校验、区块链等证据可以作为证据使用¹。但是就刑事领域，却并未对此进行明晰。而区块链智能合约的不可篡改性和程序封闭性使得其取证较为困难，必须依赖技术手段对代码进行破解后对链上数据进行追溯，进而构建完整的证据链。这一必然需求与现行刑法之间的矛盾必然会导致在实际司法过程中的不适应，无形中给智能合约犯罪取证造成了困难。这也是区块链语境下智能合约犯罪对现行刑法带来的挑战之一。

Smart contract crimes make it difficult for investigative authorities to take evidence because of their centralization, covertness, anonymity. In civil cases, the law provides that evidence such as electronic signatures, credible time stampes, Hashi value checks, block chains, etc. can be used as evidence in ¹

5. 国际刑法视野下的智能合约犯罪

5.1. 国际刑法对智能合约犯罪的管辖

5.1.1. 全球性的犯罪形态

区块链技术的去中心化和跨国特性，使得智能合约犯罪往往具有全球性。一份智能合约可能在一国编写，通过服务器在另一国执行，最后在第三国产生犯罪效果。这种跨境犯罪的新特性让国际刑法的应用面临挑战。按照传统的领土原则或者国籍原则，都可能无法有效地确定犯罪管辖权，因为这种犯罪行为超越了一个单一的领土或者国籍。因此，需要国际刑法以一种更灵活的方式，如效果原则或者普遍管辖原则，对此类犯罪进行规制。效果原则强调如果犯罪行为在某国家产生了实际效果，那么这个国家就有权对犯罪行为进行管辖。普遍管辖原则则意味着对于某些特定的严重犯罪行为，任何国家都可以进行管辖，而不论犯罪行为是否在该国发生。

The decentralization and transnational character of block-chain technology makes smart contract crimes often global. A smart contract may be written in one country, executed on a server in another country, and eventually have criminal effects in third countries. This new feature of cross-border crime challenges the application of international criminal law. Neither the traditional territorial nor the nationality principle can effectively determine criminal jurisdiction, since such crimes extend beyond a single territory or nationality. Thus, there is a need for international criminal law to regulate such crimes in a more flexible manner, such as the effects principle or the principle of universal jurisdiction.

5.1.2. 区域性的刑事管辖权

然而，即使在国际刑法的视野下，区域性的刑事管辖权也存在挑战。由于不同国家的法律制度、法律文化和技术监管水平的差异，对于同一种智能合约犯罪可能有着不同的认定和处理方式。这就需要在法律冲突的情况下，通过双边或多边条约来解决，或者遵循最有利于被告的原则。此外，也需要对国际刑法在处理此类问题上的适用性进行深入研究，以确保管辖权的确定既能满足各国的刑事司法要求，又能尊重国际法的原则。

However, even in the context of international criminal law, there are challenges to regional criminal jurisdiction. Different legal systems, legal cultures, and levels of technical regulation in different countries may lead to different ways of identifying and dealing with the same type of intellectual contract crime. This requires that, in the case of conflict of laws, it be resolved through bilateral or multilateral treaties or by the principle of the best interests of the accused. In addition, there is a need for an in-depth study of the applicability of international criminal law in dealing with such matters to ensure that the determination of jurisdiction meets the criminal justice requirements of States and respects the principles of international law.

5.2. 国际刑事责任的确定

对犯罪主体的认定：智能合约的匿名性和去中心化特性使得确定犯罪主体在国际刑法下变得困难。传统的犯罪主体通常是清晰可识别的，然而在智能合约的环境下，由于编程、执行和使用可能由不同的实体完成，确定谁应当为犯罪行为负责变得复杂。这就需要我们在解释和应用国际刑法时，充分考虑这些特性。一方面，我们需要通过技术手段来识别并追踪犯罪行为，比如使用网络追踪、数字取证等手段。另一方面，我们也需要在法律上对于此类犯罪行为的主体负责性有明确的规定和解释，这可能包括对编程者、执行者、使用者等不同角色的责任划分。

The identification of criminal subjects: the anonymity and decentralization of intellectual contracts makes it difficult to identify criminal subjects under international criminal law. Traditional criminal subjects are usually clearly identifiable, but in the context of intellectual contracts it is complicated to determine who is responsible for criminal acts because programming, execution and use may be carried out by different entities. This requires that we take these characteristics fully into account when interpreting and applying international criminal law. On the one hand, we need technical means to identify and track criminal acts, such as the use of cyber-tracing, digital forensics, etc. On the other hand, we need clear legal provisions and explanations of responsibility for the subjects of such crimes, which may include the division of responsibility between the various roles of programmers, implementers, users, etc.

对犯罪行为的界定：对于涉及多个司法管辖区的智能合约犯罪，可能会存在对同一行为的不同解释和判定。在一些国家，可能会重点考虑行为人的主观恶意，而在另一些国家，可能会更注重行为的客观危害。因此，在国际刑法框架下，需要建立一个更具有通用性和接受度的犯罪行为定义，以避免出现对同一行为的不同判定。这可能涉及对于智能合约犯罪行为的本质、特性、影响等进行深入分析，并尝试寻找一个可以被各国接受的公正且合理的解决方案。

In some countries, the focus may be on the subjective malice of the perpetrator, while in others it may be more on the objective harm of the act. Thus, a more generic and acceptable definition of criminal conduct is needed in the context of international criminal law to avoid a different determination of the same conduct. This may involve an in-depth analysis of the nature, characteristics, effects, etc. of an intellectual contract offence and an attempt to find a just and reasonable solution acceptable to States.

5.3. 国际合作与协调的挑战

5.3.1. 法律协助与引渡

对于跨境的智能合约犯罪，需要国际间建立有效的刑事司法合作机制。这包括在尊重各国主权和法律的前提下，进行有效的法律协助和引渡。例如，一个国家在调查智能合约犯罪时，可能需要另一个国家的协助来获取服务器数据、追踪犯罪行为、甚至将犯罪嫌疑人引渡回自己的国家。然而，由于各国的法律制度、数据保护规定、人权保障等因素的差异，如何进行有效的法律协助和引渡，既能满足调查需要，又能尊重国际法原则和人权保障，是一个重要且复杂的问题。

Effective international criminal justice cooperation mechanisms are needed for cross-border smart contract crimes. This includes effective legal assistance and extradition, subject to respect for the sovereignty and laws of States. For example, when investigating smart contract offences, a country may need the assistance of another country to obtain server data, trace criminal acts, and even extradite suspects back to its own country. However, effective legal assistance and extradition, owing to differences in national legal systems, data protection provisions, human rights guarantees, etc., is an important and complex issue, both to meet investigation needs and to respect the principles of international law and human rights guarantees.

5.3.2. 对比和学习各国法律经验

由于智能合约技术的新颖性，对其的刑法规制在全球范围内还处于探索阶段。因此，各国可以通过比较和学习不同国家的法律经验和判例，以寻找对智能合约犯罪更有效的刑法回应。例如，一些国家可能已经在智能合约犯罪的规制上取得了一些成功的经验，如在确定犯罪主体、界定犯罪行为、进行法律协助和引渡等方面，都有一些值得参考的做法。通过对这些做法的比较和学习，可以帮助各国在处理智能合约犯罪时，更有效地应用和发展国际刑法。

By comparing and learning from the legal experience and jurisprudence of different countries, countries can find a more effective criminal law response to intellectual contract crime. For example, some countries may already have some successful experiences with the regulation of intellectual contract crime, such as some useful practices in identifying the subjects of crime, defining the offence, providing legal assistance and extraditing.

6. 结语

应当强调，区块链技术语境下的智能合约有许多有前途的、合法的应用，但其在实践中不断拓宽社会资源流动的同时，也蕴含着诸多法律风险。虽然有部分学者认为，当前在我国刑事法律实践范围内，智能合约犯罪仍然是一个“未来想象” [11] 。但是就长期而言，对智能合约的禁止是不明智的，也是不可能的。因此，紧迫问题是如何在保障智能合约在社会中强有力适用的同时，寻求监管与自由的平衡，也即第三方监管与去中心化的平衡。在技术层面，需要深刻明晰“法律即代码”的思想，以法律对技术进行内部的及外部的约束。在法律层面，需要从罪名、犯罪构成、量刑、取证等多方面对智能合约犯罪进合理规制，以实现现有规则与未来科技变化的融洽化。归根到底，监管与控制并不是目的，通过包容审慎的监管态度推动法律人更好地了解和认知智能合约，进而使其从陌生的、有潜在危险之物，成为融入人类社会并创造价值的可控之物，才是目的。

In the long term, however, the prohibition of smart contracts is unwise and impossible. Thus, the urgent question is how to strike a balance between regulation and freedom, i.e., third-party regulation and decentralisation, while guaranteeing the strong application of smart contracts in society. At the technical level, there is a need for a deep understanding of the idea of “law or code” and for the internal and external regulation of technology by law.

NOTES

¹最高人民法院2018年9月颁布的《关于互联网法院审理案件若干问题的规定》第11条第2款规定：“当事人提交的电子数据，通过电子签名、可信时间戳、哈希值校验、区块链等证据收集、固定和防篡改的技术手段或者通过电子取证存证平台认证，能够证明其真实性的，互联网法院应当确认。”

Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Regulations on Certain Questions Concerning the Consideration of Cases by the Internet Court, promulgated by the Supreme People's Court in September 2018, provides that: “The electronic data submitted by the parties can be proven by electronic signature, credible time stamp, Hashi value check, technical means of collecting evidence, fixed and tampering, etc., or by authentication through an electronic forensic record-keeping platform, and the Internet Court shall confirm it.”