Research On Several Questions About Intentional Overdraw Fraud

Recently, credit card becomes more and more popular, which provides a two-sides coin for the economy since we have to balance the convenience of financial payments and the risk of the credit card fraud, especially the Intentional Overdraw(IO).The Decision of Punishing Financial Crimes(DPFC) by the National People's Congress standing committee in year 1995 and the Explanation on Lawsuits of Credit Card Crimes(ELCCC) by the Supreme Court and Supreme Prosecute in year 2009, dedicated themselves to the issue of the Credit Card Crimes(CCC) and the IO, have figured out much of the puzzling questions arising from the legal application, yet the real world always goes faster than the written word. New situation gives birth to new questions and problems that form the major issue of this research paper.The paper is divided into 3 parts while they serves one purpose, that is demonstrating the so far academic arguments around the subject of IO, and then take out the author's own solution. Of course, some comparison is made between alien practice and the domestic in order to make the points more clear.The 1st part gives a major skeptical of the IO theory including the conception, the pattern, and the limitation, which lends a start point for the further discussion of IO. This part also gives an overview of the IO-legal history in comparison with alien IO regulatory revolution.The 2nd part first exhibits hot puzzlement about the application of IO rules and regulation. Actually, arguments around the identification of wrongdoer, the intention, and the recourse–clause, never calm down. Then the author gives his own criticism. For example, he suggests a systematic approach in ascertaining the wrongdoers, insists a modest aptitude toward the application of the recourse–clause as well as the ratification of the involved sum.The 3rd part is about law-making and the author brings out some specific advisement, owing to his years'professional practice as a criminal prosecutor. First he insists a different way of seeing the ratification of the IO-sum. Second he advises to pick the IO out from the CCC because of its specialty in wrongdoer, the object, and other aspects. Finally, it's advised that the unit wrongdoer should also be punished, which has not yet be confirmed by the law or statue. It's possible, sometimes really happened, that units would offend the IO and even commit a large sum, while the present law has not yet prepared.