非法经营罪自1997年刑法设立以来，第225条第4项采用了空白罪状以及弹性条款的方式，影响了非法经营罪的内涵与外延的明确性。立法机关、最高人民法院和最高人民检察院颁布了一系列立法解释和司法解释，扩大了非法经营罪的适用范围。司法实践中，各级法院也不断根据第225条第4项，对各种非法的营利性活动科处刑罚。刑法第225条第4项几乎成为刑法第3章“破坏社会主义市场经济秩序罪”的兜底条款，甚至成为刑法分则的兜底条款。理论上有批评意见认为刑法第225条第4项有违反罪刑法定原则和谦抑性原则之嫌。甚至有学者主张废除“非法经营罪”，建议将其规范内容分别纳入其他具体相关罪名。通说则主张通过刑法解释学合理限制刑法第225条第4项的适用范围，减少兜底条款的滥用。本文站在通说立场，采取遵守刑法明文规定，参考但不受限于最高人民法院和最高人民检察院发布司法解释的态度，通过刑法解释的原理，从以下三个方面明确并限制第225条第4项适用范围：第一，“国家规定”如何理解。根据刑法明文规定，行政法规、国务院发布的命令、决定或者措施也可以作为“国家规定”，允许补充规范对下位规范“二次授权”，但以补充规范明文规定“二次授权”的下位规范为限；就规范内容而言应限于“经济行政法规或工商管理法规”，不要求“国家规定”中存在附属刑事责任条款。作为刑法规范重要内容的司法解释也应遵守“国家规定”的限制。第二，“其他扰乱市场秩序的非法经营行为”如何界定。广义的非法经营行为包括无照经营和无证经营，前者属于未取得工商行政管理部门颁发的工商营业执照，不构成非法经营罪，后者属于未取得特定行政主管部门颁发的许可证或者批准文件，可能构成非法经营罪。基于体系解释，无证经营除满足非法经营罪构成要件外，并非当然构成非法经营罪，只有没有取得与市场准入制度相关的许可证或者批准，才可能构成非法经营罪。第三，非法经营罪的竞合情形如何处理。非法经营罪与其他具体罪名既可能成立想象竞合，也可能成立法条竞合。在想象竞合的情形中，采取重法优先的处理规则；在法条竞合的情形中，通常适用特别法优先的规则，同时从罪刑相适应原则出发，只要不违反刑法明文规定，也可以适用重法优先的规则。
Article 225 Section 4 contains both blank indictments and plugging terms, thus offering too much free space for the court’s judgment. What’s more, the abuse of the interpretations on specific application of 225(4) in trial or procuratorial work as developed by the Supreme People's Court or the Supreme People's Procuratorate, attached more confusions. Just as scholars say, it has become a “pocket term” for the Crime of Disrupting Market Order, or even the “bottommost clauses” for the Chapter III “crimes of Undermining the Order of Socialist Market Economy”. In order to eliminate the controversies and confusions about 225(4), this article discusses three main questions:First, what the “state stipulations” contain? In my opinion, in respect of the Criminal Code, just as Article 96, it contains laws and decisions formulated by the National People's Congress or the National People's Congress Standing Committee, and administrative measures prescribed in administrative ordinance and regulations formulated by the State Council, as well as decisions and decrees the State Council promulgated. But there exist several requirements. Secondary references of the administrative regulations shall put forward the referred regulations definitely. And only disrupting the state stipulations maintaining the orders of socialist market economy can satisfy the element of 225(4). But it is not necessary to require the stipulations include criminal liability clauses. What’s more, the interpretations from the Supreme People's Court or the Supreme People's Procuratorate, shall not exceed what the state stipulations require.Second, what the “conduct other illegal business activities that seriously disrupt the market order” refers to? There exist two kinds of administrative licenses to operating business in the market, the business licenses executing by the administrative organs of industry and commerce, and the regulatory licenses executing by specific administrative organs, such as China Insurance Regulatory Commission and so on. Only running the business without the regulatory licenses constitutes 225(4). Besides, according to the systematic interpretation of the Article 225, the regulatory licenses are limited to the socialist market permission order. In another words, if someone is granted the regulatory license, he can run the business legally.Third, how to deal with the situation that one act commits two or more crimes? It composes of two different situations, the concurrence of articles and the imaginative joinder of offense, both of which exist in the 225(4). There are two problems in the theme. One is how to tell them apart. Another is how to choose the crime.
