个人破产免责制度既是有效保障债务人“重新开始”的关键钥匙，也是防止恶意破产和破产欺诈的看门人，建立合理而平衡的免责限制标准，能有效地促进上述目标的实现。本文首先探讨破产免责限制的法理与法律基础，认为进行破产免责限制确有必要，主张建立合理的免责限制标准，从而有效保护债务人、债权人以及社会各方的利益；并梳理了域内外主要国家在个人破产免责限制方面的立法演变。在明晰了免责限制的理论基础并对免责的法律路径作出了基本的判断之后，立法重点便是对个人破产免责限制进行构建。本文以《深圳经济特区个人破产条例》为蓝本，通过对其规定以及相关实务的研究，参考域外个人破产法经验，最终主要围绕不可免责的债务类型与不可免责的债务人行为进行破产免责限制的构建。对于不可免责的具体债务类型，本文讨论了税收债务、刑事罚金与行政罚款、侵权之债、婚姻家庭之债、学生教育贷款，认为税收债务可配合我国《税收征收管理法》，实行税务人类型化免责；基于非市场义务及公共利益考量，刑事罚金与行政罚款不应免责；对于侵权之债，综合主观过错与民事权益分类，对于侵犯他人身体权、生命权与健康权产生的损害赔偿金，无论债务人的主观过错，一律不予免责；对于除生命权、健康权以外的人身权与财产权，则根据主观过错进行分类，故意、重大过失侵权所生的债务应不可免责，而一般过失、轻微过失所生侵权之债，不应包含在免责限制中；婚姻家庭债务不仅包含债务人对家庭成员应承担的赡养费、抚养费和扶养费的义务，还包括其他离婚债务，应全部不予免责；鉴于我国教育贷款的非市场化与低违约率，教育贷款之债不应作为免责例外。对于债务人行为将导致其自始不能免责的情形，本文围绕破产欺诈及连续免责限制展开。首先，探究个人破产欺诈行为的定义与构成要件；其次，梳理我国个人破产欺诈的地方立法现状与实务经验；最后，从事前防范、事中控制欺诈行为和事后追究法律责任出发，对规制个人破产欺诈行为提出建议。在连续免责的问题上，认为对于已经历过破产程序的债务人，其再次申请免责时应考虑限制措施，宜以债务人获得免责的时间作为起算点，并规定较长的免责间隔时间。
The release of the "Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Personal Bankruptcy Regulations"(hereinafter referred to as "Shenzhen Regulations") has sparked unprecedented attention from all sectors of society towards the legislation of personal bankruptcy laws, especially the issue of discharge in personal bankruptcy, which has become a hot topic of discussion. The discharge system is not only a key mechanism to effectively ensure the debtor's "fresh start" but also serves as a gatekeeper against malicious bankruptcy and bankruptcy fraud. Establishing reasonable and balanced standards for discharge limitations can effectively promote the realization of these objectives. The paper is based on the Shenzhen Regulations and through an examination of its provisions and related practices, along with the reference to foreign personal bankruptcy law experiences, focuses primarily on constructing limitations on bankruptcy discharge concerning non-dischargeable debt types and debtor behaviors. It discusses specific non-dischargeable debt types including tax liabilities, criminal fines and administrative penalties, tort debts, family and marital debts, and student loans. The paper argues that tax liabilities could be handled in accordance with China's "Tax Collection Management Law" to implement a type-based discharge exemption; criminal fines and administrative penalties should not be dischargeable due to non-market obligations and public interest considerations; for tort debts, an integration of subjective fault and civil rights categorization is necessary, suggesting that debts arising from violations of others' bodily integrity, life, or health rights, regardless of the debtor's fault, should always be non-dischargeable; debts arising from other personal rights and property rights should be classified based on subjective fault, meaning debts from intentional or gross negligence should be non-dischargeable, while those from ordinary or slight negligence should not be included in the discharge limitations; marital and family debts, including obligations towards family members such as alimony, child support, and maintenance, as well as other divorce-related debts, should entirely be non-dischargeable; considering the non-market nature and low default rate of student loans in China, debts from educational loans should not be excluded from discharge. Regarding situations where a debtor's actions render them ineligible for discharge from the outset, this paper focuses on bankruptcy fraud and the limitation on successive discharges. Initially, it explores the definition and constitutive elements of personal bankruptcy fraud; subsequently, it reviews the current local legislation and practical experience concerning personal bankruptcy fraud in China. Finally, the paper proposes strategies to regulate personal bankruptcy fraud, starting from preventive measures, controlling fraudulent activities during the process, and pursuing legal responsibilities afterward. Concerning the issue of successive discharge, it argues that for debtors who have previously undergone bankruptcy proceedings, restrictions should be considered when they apply for discharge again. The starting point for these restrictions should be the time when the debtor received the last discharge, and a longer interval between discharges should be stipulated.
