风险刑法理论自其产生以来，刑事立法活跃化、刑罚权扩张、处罚前置化、法定犯盛行等，似乎均能以“应对风险社会挑战”为名正当化自身。但这样一种误用，既简单化了风险刑法理论，也简单化了“积极刑事立法”现象与观点背后的社会复杂性问题。现代复杂性科学展示了世界的不确定属性，传统刑法很大程度上建立在确定的因果关系基础之上，当下此种基础正在瓦解：普遍高发的法定犯，作为以社会秩序为对象的犯罪，乃是一种抽象的、损害结果不确定的犯罪。风险刑法正是在犯罪行为和法益损害结果之间关系模糊的地带着力，积极应对社会复杂性挑战与法益抽象化难题。风险刑法的理论资源并非只有贝克对当代社会风险现象的观察性描述，卢曼的风险社会学和社会系统论是进一步阐述风险刑法理论的新视角。风险社会的一个重要面向是信息爆炸、信息不对称、信息滥用、信息造假。“信息犯罪”是当下亟需应用风险刑法进行治理的重要领域。在信息技术造成复杂性激增的当下风险社会，社会安定性不再表现为客观物理世界的确定性，因此社会治理的目标不再止于追求物理意义上的人身、财产安全，而转变为旨在实现内在于人心理系统的社会认同、即系统性信任。原因在于法律必须经由个体心理运作，生成有限的确定性或说安定感，民众的安全诉求在社会信任的基础上才能获得全面保障。因此，提倡风险刑法，不是一味倡导刑罚权扩张并试图以此控制犯罪，而是希望在激增的社会不确定性与抽象性中，刑法能够助益于保障个体的安全感受，即保障公众对于社会系统的信任，从而实现风险治理。如果说“法定犯”对应“秩序法益”，那么“风险犯”则对应“信任法益”。信任法益既指涉人的心理安全，又是一种社会机制，也是指社会关系。在“信任”的基础上，最终能够生成“秩序”，而建基于信任基础上的秩序，是更具活力的秩序。在不同的社会系统中，损害信任法益具体表现为经济系统之专家失信与计算机系统之数据失真、沟通失灵。因此，“风险犯”与“法定犯”的区别一是法益解释上的根本不同；二是，法定犯表现为行政违法性，而风险犯则表现为系统危害性：经济犯罪危害经济系统及与其耦合的其他社会子系统，而非经济秩序。计算机网络犯罪危害以计算机网络技术为表现形式的科技系统及与其耦合的其他社会子系统、乃至全社会系统，而非计算机网络管理秩序。

Since the theory of risk criminal law came into being, the active criminal legislation, the expansion of penalty power, the predisposition of punishment, the prevalence of mala prohibita and so on all seem to be able to justify themselves in the name of ＂coping with the challenge of risk society＂. However, such a misuse not only simplifies the theory of risk criminal law, but also simplifies the social complexity behind the view and the phenomenon of ＂active criminal legislation＂. Modern complexity science shows the uncertain nature of the world. Traditional criminal law is largely built on the basis of definite causality, which is now falling apart: the common and high incidence of mala prohibita, as a crime targeting social order, is an abstract crime with uncertain damage results. Risk criminal law focuses on the ambiguous relationship between criminal behavior and legal interest damage results, and actively responds to the challenge of social complexity and legal interest abstraction.The theoretical resources of risk criminal law are not only Beck‘s observational description of contemporary social risk phenomenon, Luhmann‘s risk sociology and social system theory are new perspectives to further elaborate the theory of risk criminal law. An important aspect of risk society is information explosion, information asymmetry, information abuse and information falsification. Information crime is an important field which needs to be governed by risk criminal law. In the current risk society with rapid complexity caused by information technology, social stability is no longer expressed as the certainty of the objective physical world. Therefore, the goal of social governance is no longer to pursue personal and property security, but to realize the social identity and systematic trust on the human psychological system. Only on the basis of social trust can people‘s demands for safety be fully guaranteed. Therefore, to advocate risk criminal law is not to blindly advocate the expansion of penalty power and try to control crimes, but to help guarantee the individual‘s sense of safety and achieve risk governance. If ＂legal crime＂ corresponds to ＂legal interest of order＂, then ＂risk crime＂ corresponds to ＂legal interest of trust＂. On the basis of ＂trust＂, order can eventually be generated, and the order built on the basis of trust is more dynamic order.